Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
That's why Bradbury wanted Clayton so badly--he did a beautiful Gatsby which was practically a copy of the book. He could have done the same with SW--instead he chose to stab Ray in the back and nearly succeed in completely ruining the film. | ||||
|
A first-rater. He could and should do a Bradbury. - Phil Deputy Moderator | Visit my Bradbury website: www.bradburymedia.co.uk | Listen to my Bradbury 100 podcast: https://tinyurl.com/bradbury100pod | ||||
|
That was Ray's account, certainly. The only book-length study of Clayton (JACK CLAYTON by Neil Sinyard) details Clayton's genius for fantasy in his previous films, and suggests that his vision for SWTWC could have led to a stronger film than the one we finally got. But Clayton's fatal flaw was to re-write Bradbury without discussing it with him. Ray was usually perfectly happy with other people adapting his stories for the screen, but didn't like people changing his scripts. - Phil Deputy Moderator | Visit my Bradbury website: www.bradburymedia.co.uk | Listen to my Bradbury 100 podcast: https://tinyurl.com/bradbury100pod | ||||
|
Mr B's work exists primarily in the mind, and it take a special filmmaker to distilled it properly. A few have come close. J. D. Feigelson comes to mind. Also, Stuart Gordon and Norman Lloyd. "Live Forever!" | ||||
|
It was the best King adaptation (and film) up until Shawshank. Remarkably authentic in feel. I read the novella, and it was spot-on. "Live Forever!" | ||||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |