Slashdot Mirror
Sci Fi Channel Plans 'Earthsea' Miniseries
Gumpy writes "The Sci-Fi Channel has started producing a TV miniseries based on the first two books of Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea series. The Earthsea miniseries is supposed to start on the Sci Fi Channel in December 2004."
Aren't SCI-Fi ever going to continue with the Riverworld books, or was the response to that too disapointing?
Why don't you embrace your slashbotness instead of living in a dreamworld?
I meant to watch The Lathe of Heaven when Sci-Fi aired that a few years back, but missed it, so I'm whether or not to have my hopes up or not. I was sort of impartial to their interpretation of Dune, but then again I only saw the first miniseries. A Wizard of Earthsea wasn't the most "dense" of LeGuinn's novels, so hopefully Sci-Fi won't be able to mangle it too bad. This should be sort of interesting to check out; I might be actually excited. Heh...
--
Is it me, or did it just get fatter in here?
More than most fantasy, the Earthsea books spend time on internal character development. They can make you think. Their plots, frankly, are nothing to write home about - in my opinion, at least. Unless this is going to be an "adaptation" along the lines of Starship Troopers, I can't see it doing very well. But, who knows - I'd love to be wrong about that...
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Not sure why. I like the Lathe of Heaven and think The Ones Who Walk Away from Oomlas is one of the best short stories ever written. If I had cable, I'd probably watch it out of curiosity. But since I don't ... oh well.
Anonymous Kev
Proudly posting as AC since 1997
(Finally got a dang account in 2004)
Appropriate indeed. I always wondered why "Friends" left me feeling "unclean". Now I know it was the living dead laugh-track.
Or David Schwimmer's acting abilities....
Fantasy doesn't try to really have things make sense they just tell you that a thing works, they do not explain it.
Science Fiction often bases it's marvels on actual theory of the modern day, expanding upon it's fantastical possibilities.
Nanotechnological devices repairing a person's wounds are a little more believable than a man chanting a bunch of words than putting his hands on a would and it being healed.
Also, most Fantasy makes sides Black and White and Science Fiction uses more Grays.
This is not of course completely true with all books called Fantasy or Science Fiction, some think anything set in a almost medieval psudoeuropean setting is Fantasy and anything in the future Science Fiction.
I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
I don't know if they have any designs on Lord of Light yet, but last I heard, Sci-Fi was planning on an Amber miniseries, written by Richard Christian Matheson, whose past writing credits include such tours de force as The A-Team, Knight Rider, and The Incredible Hulk.
;)
P.S. You're not a Cassandra if people believe you.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
The fourth book in the series is utter crap and a real waste of the paper it's printed on, but I'm just into the 3rd book in my second reading of the first three. The first three are excellent. Does anyone know why the 4th book sucks so bad?
I always thought the Miles Vorkorsigan books would make a fantastic miniseries. So much material to work from and a lot of blanks to fill in for new stories.
Space combat, political intrigue, charismatic lead character.. how can you go wrong?
Unless Disney got a hold of it, of course.
"I drank what?" - Socrates
Actually, someone has already done that. The Wyrd Sisters and Soul Music have both been done as animated mini-series. I've seen the latter, and it's quite fun. I didn't care much for the style of animation, but the voice acting is wonderful.
You can get them at Amazon.com (and no, it's not a referral link).
I hope they get the race issue correct, as most attempts to make film or TV from LeGuinn's books make the central characters white, despite her descriptions.
She never does specify a definate race, but all of her main characters are described as brown, red, or dark skinned. There may be a question as to what race Ged actually is, but he is definately not white.
Read, L
I think you are right here. Earthsea is clearly much easier to dramatize than LotR, because it is much closer in spirit to drama to begin with. This has nothing to do with its relative merits.
Earthsea, on the other hand, was written more like a modern story and less like an ancient epic. They've got a real opportunity here, a great work by a master storyteller. I hope it works out.
LotR is not really written like an ancient epic either. I know, I've read the Kalevala and the Illiad and, of course, Beowulf. Although imbued with the spirit of the ancient epic, LotR is totally unlike any of them.
The key to LotR's difficulty is its elaborately non-linear structure, the parallel pieces of which are finely and accurately dovetailed together with scenic details in a way a movie goer can't be expected to follow. If a characer looks at the sky and notes the phase of the moon, it is not a throw away scene, but a clue to chronology. It's a very skillful way of letting the careful reader in on details that the charcters are not privvy to without lots of exposition.
With respect to the language used, Tolkien is much more careful than he is usually given credit. He doesn't put archaic speach into characters' mouths willy nilly. Elrond speaks archaicly, because that's how an immortal who learn your language hundreds of years ago would sound. On the other hand as TA Shippey points out, Saruman speaks exactly like a modern politician; the fact that he speaks this way has signficance.
In any case while the dialog in the movie is somewhat different (lines are often moved to different characters), the movie pretty much proved that its archaism is not a cinematic problem. The only place where the dialog felt awkward was when it was forced into performing some script writing function ("Now the battle for Helm's Deep has ended..." etc.).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
On the other hand:
The A Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs and Furthest Shore cluster together as a story about the career of a single character (Ged). The later books, developed 20 years later, focus on different characters, different themes and are done in a different style. Probably the best way to think of them is as a trilogy with two sequels.
Its been a mixed bag with sci-fi pictures doing books, I thought Dune was great and have both the DVDs, and Riverworld was good, but i felt they didn't do justice to the books with that Deathlands movie. I'd rather see them do a crappy Outlanders movie than Deathlands, but a good movie of either would be great. Also, who know how many of those saturday night "Attack of the Giant *BLANK*" movies are based on books...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I would be surprised if Le Guin sold the film rights without retaining tight creative control... Or did she sell them a long time ago, before she became famous enough to be able to set her own terms?
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews