MuggleMagic Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share Posted September 14, 2009 Yes, I know what you mean. It can become unnecesary. One sex scene in particular got my back up. It is almost insulting. As if the director thinks we are so stupid we cannot pick up on a bit of sexual tension (like we so obviously do in the book) that they have to show us. Ahwell. Sex sells Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nollaig Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Ahwell. Sex sells Yup, and it says it all about the human race. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I sort of wish I'd stuck it out to the end now, just to see how the extraneous character of Lord Henry's daughter fits into the story and what the point of her was! On another forum, a poster (who hasn't read the book) said... It seemed important to the screenwriter for it to be Henry's daughter who saved Dorian, made him see the error of his way, made him realise what he'd become Saved him?! WTF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I guess the wider question here is whether films should reflect the book as much as possible, or whether they are allowed to change lots of things? Do you think that if you hadn't read the book, you would have enjoyed it.. is it the changes which are annoying, or the film itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 That's a good question. For me, I think it's probably the changes. It's such a good story and the changes don't seem to make the story any better. It's like they wanted to soften it up a little. By contrast, I really enjoyed the recent adaptation of Wuthering Heights because I had nothing to compare it to, but I know a lot of members who've read it were really disappointed with that. I guess the answer is that if it's a book one really likes, then don't risk it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nollaig Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Yup, I would agree with Janet. As a general rule I hate movie adapations, and I think my affections for Mr. Wilde are widely known around here. I think the 1945 (I think?) black and white adapation does the job just fine, it's classic, not extreme. I think I like classic adaptions of classic books - and I've reiterated a few times here that I'm not judging it as a movie in it's own right at all, I can't do that when I haven't seen it. Of course, I also don't like the implications for the original novel if the movie is introducing a new generation to a totally different story to that Oscar wrote, and they favour it over Oscar's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fi. Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Guess who walked out after 30 minutes? Horrified, the only resemblance to Dorian Gray were the character names I knew we should have gone to see District 9 instead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it either - although I'm not surprised. From The Guardian - specifically for Roxi who I know will be spluttering when she reads it... The screenwriter Toby Finlay unwisely stretches the 1890 novel's timescale, so that it extends through the first world war into the 1920s, with Wotton's daughter turning up as a suffragette trying to redeem Dorian. I'd gone by this point, but seriously - I didn't think it could get any more far removed from the book than that which I'd already seen or read about, but this just takes the biscuit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nollaig Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 ..... ..... ..... I choose not to voice my response as my word choice might get me banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fi. Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 That makes me even more glad I left when I did - they're just taking the michael now with that plotline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuggleMagic Posted September 16, 2009 Author Share Posted September 16, 2009 I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it either - although I'm not surprised. From The Guardian - specifically for Roxi who I know will be spluttering when she reads it... The screenwriter Toby Finlay unwisely stretches the 1890 novel's timescale, so that it extends through the first world war into the 1920s, with Wotton's daughter turning up as a suffragette trying to redeem Dorian. I'd gone by this point, but seriously - I didn't think it could get any more far removed from the book than that which I'd already seen or read about, but this just takes the biscuit... Yes, I did wonder about that when I watched the film I'm still flying the flag over here though - I loved it I think the other poster's comments (the forum where she hadn't read the book) are valid. If she has interperated it like that then that is up to her. We all see things in different ways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted September 16, 2009 Share Posted September 16, 2009 I think the other poster's comments (the forum where she hadn't read the book) are valid. If she has interperated it like that then that is up to her. We all see things in different ways Oh, I wasn't criticising what he said - please don't think that. I'd never criticise someone for having an opinion. I meant that the concept of Dorian being saved was a WTF moment, not that Ash had interpreted it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissi Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 ...is it the changes which are annoying, or the film itself? Film itself. Read the novel, thought it was good but didn't remember that much really. The film just lacks depths, that's the problem. It's like "Let's have a sex scene...and another one...and another one....aaaaand another one....ohh, we need some Sybil time as well...why not put it into a sex scene?" They could have at least done a proper sex scenes, those ones were just booooring Ah well, I just make fun of it now. That's what I wrote on Twitter the other day: Maybe Dorian actually had Asthma, that would explain those weird noises coming from the painting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kell Posted September 17, 2009 Share Posted September 17, 2009 I guess the wider question here is whether films should reflect the book as much as possible, or whether they are allowed to change lots of things? I'm one of the "If it says it's based on a book, then it should at least follow the basic plot of the book, rather than just giving the characters the same names and a tony bit of the plot then taking it in a different direction" camp. If they want to change it, why not just write something original instead and not claim it's based on anything at all? I can just never get my head around it. If it's an adaptation, then it should be practically impossible to do a bad one if you follow what happens in the book. Obviously, there's always going to be a few small changes because of time constraints, but the overall spirit of the film should remain faithful to that of the book, otherwise it's not really an adaptation at all, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Nollaig (hoping you'll see this!) - did you ever watch this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nollaig Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Not yet, I'm too afraid to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seraphy Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Is it written by Oscar Wilde? I have read the book, it's very typical Wilde. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christian Friborg Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Great movie. I liked how Ben Barnes portrayed the main character. A must see movie, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsmeagain Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 (edited) On 2009-9-11 at 10:28 AM, MuggleMagic said: Maybe i am a wimp but what with the music ... I did find it a little bit jumpy I haven't read the book in a while so I could be wrong here but I am pretty sure there is one part in the film that would never have been published at the time. Throughout the book I picked up that maybe Basil had feelings for Dorian. I didn't mention this to my boyfriend (he hasn't read the book) because I wanted to see whether he would pick up on anything like that in the film. Well, it didn't leave much to the imagination let me tell you! That annoyed me a little bit Other than that it was good Dorian Gray WAS very handsome in the film Oh the old syndrome of a film being more risqué than the book, which is rather old. No wonder, as the book is decidedly gay and a modern film will bring out the salacious aspects of the book which Wilde didn't dare to write. Edited May 24, 2017 by itsmeagain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madeleine Posted May 24, 2017 Share Posted May 24, 2017 I thought the film was quite tame by today's standards, and at least the portrait was better than the one in Penny Dreadful! What a letdown that was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.