They are soiling another precious part of my childhood.
The Dark is Rising was one of my favourite series of books growing up. I spent my 30th birthday in Wales in the shadow of Cader Idris because of the book The Grey King.

How do I know they are going to spoil it? They just are. This gives me an indication anyway:

From here:
What? Will Stanton's is the youngest of a large family with a comfortable and protected home life and close knit family. This makes the wild and unpredictable nature of the world outside a direct contrast. Now he has a rebellious older brother and family conflict at home. Right.

I quite like Chris Ecclestone as The Rider though.

Not impressed by the Coraline teaser.
It's American to start with. I know I should expect it by now but it still bugs me. Which means for a start the name is pronounced differently than I hear it in my head (and how Neil Gaiman pronounces it when he reads).

And there's a shot of her crawling through a tiny door.
Why?
This isn't Alice in Wonderland. The door was full size - it was orginally a door to connect two rooms when the flat was a house.

Oh I know it's petty. I just wish they'd commissioned Gaiman to write an original script, then Coraline could have stayed in my head in the perfectly formed version that he wrote in the first place.

Then again, I might just avoid it. I did with The Dark is Rising and The Golden Compass after all.

that movie they made out of The Dark is Rising (which was called something totally different) sucked mondoly.

Have to say the most satisfying movie make of a childhood fave would be the Lord of the Rings movies. Very faithful to the book, despite the Arwen re-write.

No offense intended, Cloud, but ..... are you #$%&ing INSANE?

Just wondering.

If the movie were titled, "The War of the Ring" I might have liked it as a substantially modified retelling of roughly the same events. Calling it "The Lord of The Ring" made me anticipate something fairly close to the books (which I love), thus leading to great disappointment.

I can forgive a lot of the plot editing - Bombadil gone, eg - it had to be shortened. But they ripped out some of the most important themes - why the three hobbits insist on accompanying Frodo, eg - and dumbed down a lot of the rest, especially the confrontations between Gandalf and Saruman. Those should have been high drama a la A Few Good Men - "I WANT THE TRUTH!!!" "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!", not cheap magic fights.
Instead all we got was fight after fight after fight. Ok the visual effects were awesome, especially the Balrog. That was not, imho, enough to redeem it.

:2cents:

Hang on, isn't "The Lord of the Ring" a gay porn film?

I sorely missed Bombadil too.

nah. very peripherally related to the main story. I always skim the first part of FOTR until they get to Bree.

I'm sorry to disagree, but I think they did a fantastic job of converting a very, very lengthy and difficult series of books to a different medium. I was sold when I saw the horses in the whitewater of the Ford.

True, the visual effects were excellent, and quite a bit of cutting was necessary. It was the dumbing down that ticked me off. I was really looking forward to Gandalf Vs Saruman in The Voice of Isengard, or Gandalf Vs Wormtongue in The King of the Golden Hall.

I encourage your disagreement - the only bit I freaked about was were you said it was "very faithful to the book".

well, as much as any movie can be. Maybe I didn't notice the dumbing down 'cause I'm already dumb enough!

I think the Harry Potter movies followed the books damn near word for word. Anal little kids (unlike me, an anal grown up) spot things like that, and they'll know they got it wrong!

I also think the HP movies are done well. The casting, especially, continues to impress.

:Chuckles:
IMHO The casting of the tall, handsome Daniel Radcliffe as the short, weedy Harry Potter was the only major inaccuracy in those movies.

Ok, I'll stop now. And really, those movies were pretty good.

Personally I think they messed up with Emma whatsit as Hermione, and the Weasley body shapes are all wrong. And I miss Peeves. Oh and the Gryffindor common room is FAR TOO SMALL to take the whole of Gryffindor house. And they have all the students taking lessons together which implies there is only one class of about 25 per year at Hogwarts, goodness those wizards don't have many kids do they?!

The casting I like is McGonagall, Snape, the Fat Lady, Luna, Oliver Stone oh and the splendid Argus Filch.

It is fun to have a major movie where all the cast have to be British. Thank all that's holy that Jo didn't need the money from the films and wasn't persuaded to have them set in America.

[anal little kid]
Harry's eyes are green, not blue, which has pissed me off since the first film. I read an article in nickelodeon magazine when the first movie came out saying that they didn't feel it was necessary to give the actor contacts to change that inaccuracy, but it always pissed me off because they make such a big deal in the books about how he looks like his father, but has his mother's eyes.
[/anal little kid]

I have a hard time watching movies from books because I'm one of those people who remembers evvvverything they read. It can be a good movie (I do like the harry potter movies) but it's just not the same.

Well ok, Harry Potter movies are pretty damn close, I need a better example...

I really liked the book Eragon, but the movie hardly followed the plot at all. Good book, good movie, bad adaptation of a book to a movie.

yeah, the eye color thing is troublesome. Nevertheless, I'm very impressed with Daniel Radcliffe. Remember, Zengum, that these kids were cast when very young, and a very young Daniel was very cuddly and cute. Not his fault he grew up to be kind of a hunk! But what a difficult casting that would be--not only to cast for cuddly and cute at the beginning, but to cast for the hero he would become in the end, and Daniel is going to be able to pull that off. Still amazing casting, imo.