# Earthsea - Review



## LrdApoc (Nov 27, 2004)

*Legend of Earthsea will air at 8 p.m. Monday and Tuesday December 13th and 14th on Sci Fi Channel.*

By Shawn Sines

    The Sci-Fi channel has historically rolled out the big guns every year with their December special events. Last year it gave us the monolithic _Taken_ and a _Battlestar Galactica _ remake.

    This year its focus shifts to a beloved fantasy series.

    Capitalizing on the public fancy of The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films, Sci-Fi chose to adapt the first two of Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea novels - _A Wizard of Earthsea _ and _The Tombs of Atuan_.
    Fans of the novels should not expect a faithful reproduction of the books but will still find the overall feel of them present. The series does bring a little of the novels' greatness to life on the screen through the good performances by the cast.

_Legend of Earthsea _ focuses on the adventures of a young man known as Ged (Shawn Ashmore) who is growing up to find he has strange magical powers and is destined to become a great wizard. The core of the story is about power, pride and responsibility as Ged makes prideful mistakes and must work to correct those errors throughout his life.

    After defending his home village from an invasion of the armies of Kargide, Ged is found by the local wizard Ogion (Danny Glover) and offered the chance to train and develop his powers to their fullest potential. Like all young boys, Ged soon rebels against the teachings of his new master and sets off to a far off wizard school.

    Once Ged arrives the film begins to resemble Harry Potter too closely. Ged is befriended by a laid-back country wizard, a plucky female wizard and encounters a conceited wizard of noble blood. Most of the first night of the series follows Ged's development from wild youth to angry young wizard.

    Inevitably, Ged and his nemesis Jasper push each other until Ged, in an act of pride, attempts to call forth the spirit of a long dead hero.
    This act serves as the focal point in the story as Ged releases an evil creature called a Gebbeth into the world. Up until this point the series does a good job of capturing the essence of Le Guin's original stories.

    Once Ged frees the evil spirit, however, the television adaptation strays thematically from the source quite a bit. The main focus of Le Guin's novels surrounds the fact that Ged feels great sorrow for his acts and is humbled in the quest to remove this evil presence from the world.

    Unfortunately, in the series the gravity of Ged's humiliation and despair is not intact. Instead, the writers chose to integrate the story of the second novel into the tale and introduce a secondary arc featuring Tenar (Kristin Kreuk of the WB's _Smallville_), a kind-hearted young priestess who guards the secrets of the Gebbeth and its dark race. Tenar and Ged do not meet until late in the series second night, but from the beginning it is obvious that the two will end up together, saving the world from the Gebbeth.

    Fans of the novels will rankle at some of the changes - namely the changes to Ged's character and the modification of the character of Vetch (Chris Guthier). Playing to audiences who are still enamored with the recent _Lord of the Rings _ films, Vetch is rewritten to serve as Ged's Samwise Gamgee.

    Also, the Kargath God-King from the second book is simplified and made into the stereotypical British bad guy King Tygath (Sabastian Roche), who prances around chewing up the screen like a cardboard James Bond villain. The shallow villain seems thrown in just for show, since Ged's adversary is truly the Gebbeth and his personal struggle against it.

    Fortunately the acting saves _Legends of Earthsea_. Shawn Ashmore demonstrates that he can play an angst-filled character with some depth and does an excellent job showing the changes that Ged experiences along the way. Kruek's Tenar is wide eyed and innocent and frankly too one-dimensional overall. She makes a fair attempt to breath life into the character but she has no obvious flaws, and as such is dull.

    Danny Glover and Isabella Rossellini both turn in strong supporting roles as the mentors of Ged and Tenar. Glover's Ogion is strong, reserved and mysterious and truly serves the mentor role well. The most surprising performance, however, comes from Chris Gauthier and Shawn Ashmore together. Both actors do an amazing job of portraying best friends and share some wonderful on-screen chemistry - far more than Ashmore and Kreuk's


----------



## Sado (Nov 27, 2004)

After reading the review, I was at first tempted to write this series off completely.  However, I think I will base my opinion not on how closely it follows (or doesn't follow) the boks, but how good of a story the mini-series tells in spite of the differences.

After all, if it was just about strict adherence to books, I never would have seen the second and third LotR movies.


----------



## Orius (Nov 28, 2004)

Well, I don't have cable, so I won't be able to see it.  However, I have to say a departure from the books might be a good thing. _A Wizard of Earthsea_ might be considered a fantasy classic, but I found it horribly dull and a struggle to finish myself.


----------



## Mystery Man (Nov 28, 2004)

Out of all the books I've read in my life I never touched these for on reason or another so I plan on enjoying the mini series on its own merits. Yay for me!!


----------



## CCamfield (Nov 29, 2004)

LrdApoc said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, in the series the gravity of Ged's humiliation and despair is not intact. Instead, the writers chose to integrate the story of the second novel into the tale and introduce a secondary arc featuring Tenar (Kristin Kreuk of the WB's _Smallville_), a kind-hearted young priestess who guards the secrets of the Gebbeth and its dark race. Tenar and Ged do not meet until late in the series second night, but from the beginning it is obvious that the two will end up together, saving the world from the Gebbeth.




Is it okay if I pound my head on the desk now?

Le Guin was trying to say something different in each of the original Earthsea books.  Evidently that went right over the heads of the producers of the miniseries.  Guards the secrets of the Gebbeth...?!?!?!?!


----------



## Krieg (Nov 29, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> Le Guin was trying to say something different in each of the original Earthsea books.  Evidently that went right over the heads of the producers of the miniseries.




If you read LeGuin's comments on her webpage, I think you will find that she agrees with you 100%.


----------



## Starman (Nov 29, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> If you read LeGuin's comments on her webpage, I think you will find that she agrees with you 100%.




Yeah, after the original trilogy, I'm not sure I liked what she was saying anymore.

Starman


----------



## Krieg (Nov 29, 2004)

Starman said:
			
		

> Yeah, after the original trilogy, I'm not sure I liked what she was saying anymore.




*shrug* Then you probably avoid her later books.


----------



## johnsemlak (Nov 29, 2004)

Will this flim/series be available on DVD/videocassette?


----------



## CCamfield (Nov 29, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> If you read LeGuin's comments on her webpage, I think you will find that she agrees with you 100%.




I went back to her site to reread those and well... it's more than that. \\
In the original Earthsea books, the first book is about Ged's rash actions, taking responsibility for the damage he has caused, and accepting himself.

Tomb of Atuan has nothing to do with that.  It's the hardest of the first three for me to pin down on themes, but one thing it's shows is that the clergy, run by women, is still awful - gender has nothing to do with that.  And it's about Tenar's coming of age perhaps, and choosing to leave the world she knows.  _It has nothing to do with the Gebbeth_.

And the third book, obviously, is about death and coming to terms with death.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Nov 29, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Out of all the books I've read in my life I never touched these for on reason or another so I plan on enjoying the mini series on its own merits. Yay for me!!



 Same here.


----------



## Elrik_DarkFury (Nov 29, 2004)

> Well, I don't have cable, so I won't be able to see it. However, I have to say a departure from the books might be a good thing. A Wizard of Earthsea might be considered a fantasy classic, but I found it horribly dull and a struggle to finish myself.




I believe that the books are very remarkable.

For the people who found the books hard to read, i have to say that
although the story is set in a fantacy world, it is not like reading Drizzt or something.(all i say is that the flavor is very different from what someone might be used to)

My favored one is the first book of the trilogy where Ged is the main hero and the story focuces more in magic-adventure and Ged's progress in Art(magic).
The other 2 books, kind of disappointed me,mostly because i was full of hunger for more of his adventures and i didn't found any in them.

___________________
The Wizard


----------



## Elrik_DarkFury (Nov 29, 2004)

And too sad they abused the story that way,that much.
We have seen that many times before in many popular films but not in that extend..


_________________
The Wizard


----------



## LrdApoc (Nov 30, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> I went back to her site to reread those and well... it's more than that. \\
> In the original Earthsea books, the first book is about Ged's rash actions, taking responsibility for the damage he has caused, and accepting himself.
> 
> Tomb of Atuan has nothing to do with that.  It's the hardest of the first three for me to pin down on themes, but one thing it's shows is that the clergy, run by women, is still awful - gender has nothing to do with that.  And it's about Tenar's coming of age perhaps, and choosing to leave the world she knows.  _It has nothing to do with the Gebbeth_.
> ...




My thoughts exactly. The blending of the two characters stories is done only to allow equal screen time for a female character. I was upset that even if they had to change the books to make them a movie they chose not to be true to the second book at all. The majoirty of the first book is there in spirit.. at least the scenes are similar though the scope is missing.

I hated the fabricated evils created for the Tenar plot.. and face that she has no resemblance to the actual character either...

Oh well.. as it is the show is light fantasy fare for those who don't expect much from TV fantasy.


----------



## Laurel (Nov 30, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Out of all the books I've read in my life I never touched these for on reason or another so I plan on enjoying the mini series on its own merits. Yay for me!!



This was one I was thinking of picking up the books prior to seeing the miniseries.... but it actually looks like it could be good.  So maybe I'll watch it, if I like it wait a few weeks then read the books.  If I hate it, pick up the books right away   This way I may be able to enjoy both.

SciFi channel isn't known for great miniseries, but cool and entertaining they do seem to get with most of the big miniseries.

And the girl from smallville is in it... So I have to see it, and then ponder where her career will be going after this.


----------



## Krieg (Nov 30, 2004)

CCamfield said:
			
		

> I went back to her site to reread those and well... it's more than that. \\
> In the original Earthsea books, the first book is about Ged's rash actions, taking responsibility for the damage he has caused, and accepting himself.
> 
> Tomb of Atuan has nothing to do with that.  It's the hardest of the first three for me to pin down on themes, but one thing it's shows is that the clergy, run by women, is still awful - gender has nothing to do with that.  And it's about Tenar's coming of age perhaps, and choosing to leave the world she knows.  _It has nothing to do with the Gebbeth_.
> ...




Actually The Tombs of Atuan IS about growing up and learning to accept responsbility for one's actions. It is just that Arha/Tenar is the vehicle for the message this time. In her roll as the high priestess she never had to accept responsibility. Only through taking charge of her own life does she learn that while she was had great power as priestess she was also a slave. 

Much as with WoE, the message is that one is only whole when they accept responsibility for their actions.

Tehanu rubs me raw in many ways, as it seems that somewhere in the intervening 20 years LeGuin lost the capacity for subtlety. Everytime Tenar & Tehanu's show strength it felt like a hammer blow from the pages & the arbitrary unfairness of most of the men was equally over the top. 

I can't help but think that some seed of bitterness within LeGuin has grown deep roots over the past decades...


----------



## Starman (Dec 1, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Tehanu rubs me raw in many ways, as it seems that somewhere in the intervening 20 years LeGuin lost the capacity for subtlety. Everytime Tenar & Tehanu's show strength it felt like a hammer blow from the pages & the arbitrary unfairness of most of the men was equally over the top.
> 
> I can't help but think that some seed of bitterness within LeGuin has grown deep roots over the past decades...




This is exactly what I'm talking about. I think a lot of her early stuff is brilliant. Her later books, though, seem sadly lacking. 

Starman


----------



## Krieg (Dec 1, 2004)

Starman said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I'm talking about. I think a lot of her early stuff is brilliant. Her later books, though, seem sadly lacking.
> 
> Starman




I misunderstood your original post. I thought you meant that after _reading_ the original three books you didn't like what she was saying. I assumed you were implying that it was something within the trilogy that turned you off (which confused me a bit).

Now that you've helped clarify _my_ misunderstanding I can't help but agree.


----------



## Starman (Dec 1, 2004)

Krieg said:
			
		

> I misunderstood your original post. I thought you meant that after _reading_ the original three books you didn't like what she was saying. I assumed you were implying that it was something within the trilogy that turned you off (which confused me a bit).
> 
> Now that you've helped clarify _my_ misunderstanding I can't help but agree.




And I was confused, too, because I thought I was agreeing with you.  Chalk it up to the vagaries of internet communication.  

Starman


----------



## Faraer (Dec 1, 2004)

If this series indeed replaces much of what's great about the novels with formula pap, the apparent swapping of the hero's usename and truename would be a symbol of it.


----------



## Olive (Dec 1, 2004)

Ghod, everytime Le Guin comes up, people seem to be projecting things on to her on the basis of one bad book. _The Farthest Shore_, which followed _Tehnau_ was amazing. _Tales of Earthsea_ , the short story colelction that also came out recently, includes perhaps the best of the earthsea stories. One of her more recent Hainish cycle books, _The Telling_ recieved rave reviews, even being names among the _Economist's_ books oft he year a few years a go.

She writes one bad book and everyone jumps all over her accusing her of some deep seating bitterness. I, for one, don't understand it.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 2, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> She writes one bad book and everyone jumps all over her accusing her of some deep seating bitterness. I, for one, don't understand it.




Take the time and read a lot of the personal quotes associated with her over the last decade. My opinion isn't based merely on Tehanu, it has far more to do with what she has said outside of her work. There has always been a bit of darkness worked into her work, it is just that the darkness is now deeper than before.


----------



## LrdApoc (Dec 3, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> Will this flim/series be available on DVD/videocassette?




Yes John, I'm sure it will follow suit witht he other Sci Fi series productions. BSG and Taken both were released on DVD.. so it stands to reason this will be as well.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 14, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> Ghod, eveytime Le Guin comes up, people seem to be projecting things on to ehr ont he basis of one bad book. _The Farthest Shore_, which followed _Tehnau_ was amazing.




_The Farthest Shore_ (copyright 1973) predates _Tehanu_ (copyright 1990) by almost two decades.


----------



## GSHamster (Dec 14, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> _The Farthest Shore_ (copyright 1973) predates _Tehanu_ (copyright 1990) by almost two decades.




Olive is probably talking about _The Other Wind_.


----------



## Olive (Dec 14, 2004)

GSHamster said:
			
		

> Olive is probably talking about _The Other Wind_.




As indeed I was. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 15, 2004)

Bleah. Formulaic pap is right.

Even the lovely Ms. Kreuk couldn't save _A Ham of Earthsea_.

It would have been excellent to have seen that first book made into a movie. Now we'll have to wait even longer.

Bleah.

 -- N


----------



## James Heard (Dec 15, 2004)

It was better than the D&D movie.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 16, 2004)

James Heard said:
			
		

> It was better than the D&D movie.



*Blinks* ROFL.


----------



## Jhamin (Dec 16, 2004)

James Heard said:
			
		

> It was better than the D&D movie.




Most episodes of Captain Planet were better than the D&D movie.

That doesn't mean they aren't banned under the Geneva conventions.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 17, 2004)

*Ratings and $$$$$*

Well, someone is laughing...all the way to the bank.

See *here*.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 17, 2004)

Slate has an interesting article from Ms. Le Guin

A Whitewashed Earthsea: How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books.


----------



## Krieg (Dec 17, 2004)

I'm sorry, did she say "honky"?!

Interesting that she seems far more concerned with the color of the actor's skin than with the butchery of her story.


----------



## Starman (Dec 18, 2004)

Judging by the article, I don't think she really watched the series. I think she just saw a bunch of white guys and got upset. 

Starman


----------



## NTZ (Dec 18, 2004)

Taped Earthsea in order to watch it this weekend.  So far I have only been able to choke down a half hour of it, but I will try to watch more of it.  At least until I get to see Kristin Kreuk.  

When I stopped watching it this morning guess what was on tv?  The Dungeons and Dragons movie!  :\ 

NTZ


----------



## Krieg (Dec 18, 2004)

NTZ said:
			
		

> When I stopped watching it this morning guess what was on tv?  The Dungeons and Dragons movie!  :\




I watched that again this morning as well. I hadn't seen it since it first came out on DVD and thought I'd give it one more chance just to make sure I wasn't overly critical originally.

Nope. It still sucks. Hard.


----------



## Storminator (Dec 19, 2004)

I thought it was pretty ordinary. It hit all the major points of the books, but completely missed the depth of the stories. Very superficial treatment, even in places where it didn't need to be.

The scenery was stellar. I really liked Kossol. She was completely different than I pictured her, and her motivations and many of her actions were changed, but she captured the feel of the character.

Does anyone else think that ToA, as written, would have made an amazingly bad film? And now! 20 minutes of a lone character thinking to herself in a pitch black labyrinth! No sounds! no visuals!

PS


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 20, 2004)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I thought it was pretty ordinary. It hit all the major points of the books, but completely missed the depth of the stories. Very superficial treatment, even in places where it didn't need to be.




I can't figure out how the miniseries hit all of the major points of the books, given that about 80% of the material put on the screen was cut from whole cloth, and the remaining 20% was a jumbled mess that bore little relation to the source material.


----------



## Storminator (Dec 20, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I can't figure out how the miniseries hit all of the major points of the books, given that about 80% of the material put on the screen was cut from whole cloth, and the remaining 20% was a jumbled mess that bore little relation to the source material.



 Warriors in the mist, Ogion, Gont, Roke, the Doorkeeper, Osskil, Havnor, Jasper, Vetch, Yarrow, the Labyrinth, Usenames & Truenames, names as power, dragons and dragonlords, the broken amulet (previous owner lost at sea), Kargide raiders, lots of sailing, the Gibboth.

 Not sure how you missed all that.

 PS


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 20, 2004)

Storminator said:
			
		

> Warriors in the mist, Ogion, Gont, Roke, the Doorkeeper, Osskil, Havnor, Jasper, Vetch, Yarrow, the Labyrinth, Usenames & Truenames, names as power, dragons and dragonlords, the broken amulet (previous owner lost at sea), Kargide raiders, lots of sailing, the Gibboth.
> 
> Not sure how you missed all that.




I didn't miss it, I just noted that their use in the television version bore little to no relationship to their use in the books. Yes, they got some of the names the same, but most of the characters who had those names had little in common with the versions from the books.

The Doorkeeper, for example, did we ever find out he was the Master Doorkeeper? Or why you had to give him your name to enter (and have his help to leave)? The labyrinth went from being a place of _power_ for the nameless ones, to their _prison_, hardly even close to the same thing.

Given that the Khargad story line was basically invented from whole cloth (every scene that Tygath showed up in was new), and the position of the Khargad as "an invading plague" was a radically different take on their place, that's one of the three storylines that has _no_ relation to the books.

Given that the Atuan storyline was radically different, and the _only_ thing they kept the same was the existence of the labyrinth (but changed its purpose) and radically changed every character (including Arha/Tenar, Kossul and so on), eliminated the temple of the Godking, and inverted the entire storyline, there's another third of the movie that has almost no relation to the books. (By the way, why did they, given their retention of the true names idea, eliminate the concept of Arha, whose name had supposedly been taken from her)?

Given that the Ged/Sparrowhawk story was altered so that the Gebbeth (which was a different creature from what it was in the books) was now the same as the nameless ones from Atuan, and the resolution of the quest made no sense (and now apparently imbued Ged with super strength). And Jasper, and Vetch, and Roke were all oddly altered (in most cases so they fit with the nonsensical Tygath storyline). I still can't figure out why they reversed Ged/Sparrowhawk's names. And there was no mention of dragonlords, only that Ged could talk to Orm Embar, in a conversation that was, once again, entirely made up for the miniseries.

And your invocation of the "broken Amulet of Peace" as a similarity doesn't work. The Ring of Erreth-Akbe wasn't an amulet of peace, and it wasn't part of "binding the nameless ones" or whatever the (incomprehensible) resolution in the miniseries was. And it wasn't something the priestsesses of Atuan wanted, but rather something they intentionally broke in half.

Given that the televised version bore such little relation to the books in so many ways, I'm not sure how you think that it "hit the high points". They used the same names in some places, but by and large, those names were attached to things that had nothing in common with what they had previosuly been attached to. The miniseries didn't hit the highlights from the books, it aped the books with hollow imitation at best.

Not sure how you missed that.


----------



## Strithe (Dec 20, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Slate has an interesting article from Ms. Le Guin
> 
> A Whitewashed Earthsea: How the Sci Fi Channel wrecked my books.




I find it interesting when artists knowlingly make business deals and come out with mock outrage when Hollywood changes their works.  She could have always elected not to sell the rights to her book, especially if she was so concerned about certain core concepts.  Artistic integrity aside I don't see her complaining about the check they wrote her.

From my point of view, I've never really cared about the ethnicity or gender or orientation etc. of the characters in books I've read.  What usually matters to me is if the characters and/or story are compelling in some way, not whether or not the characters resemble me physically.  Of course, this may have something to do with the fact that I'm a German/Italian/Russian/Czech mutt.

I haven't read LeGuin's books, although I've got a copy of Wizard of Earthsea I've never got around to reading.  Of course, if you follow her article it seems that the only central theme to the Earthsea books is that they don't have Caucasians in them, so maybe I'll pass.   

She may want to climb down from the pedastal too, she's hardly the first author to write about multiracial characters in Fantasy or Science Fiction.  H. Beam Piper had mixed-race characters in his far future stories & novels, which were published about 10 years before the Earthsea novels.

As far as the miniseries series goes itself, I taped it Sunday night and watched about the first hour or so.  My initial impression is that it has decent acting and good visuals.  The storyline.... nothing spectacular but at least it's watchable and fairly entertaining.  At least it's not the Shatneresque-overacting and late-80's-video-game-look-CGI craptacular that was Dungeons & Dragons (a film that is only out-badded by such horrors as Space Hunter and Metalstorm: the Destruction of Jared-Zin).


----------



## Squire James (Dec 21, 2004)

From my understanding of the Earthsea trilogy, names were - um - kinda important (um - FREAKING CRUCIAL).  When they couldn't even get the main character's name right, I had trouble taking the rest of the story very seriously.  It's like Peter Jackson deciding that Sam would be the Ringbearer and Frodo would be a snooty aristocratic sidekick.

That being said, the story was okay, even good at times.  It showed about as much similarity to its source material as the "I, Robot" movie, though.  I'd almost say more "Harry Potter" and "Lord of the Rings" made it into the movie than "Earthsea", and it didn't belong there.


----------



## Rhialto (Dec 21, 2004)

You know, while her tone was rather unfortunate, I'd say the casting problems represents the entire problem with the series--two books which boldy reversed fantasy's traditional color-coding, are converted into a show which is yet another example of the code.  The miniseries subvert the entire tone of the Le Guin's books to make a completely generic work.


----------



## WayneLigon (Dec 21, 2004)

Strithe said:
			
		

> I find it interesting when artists knowlingly make business deals and come out with mock outrage when Hollywood changes their works. She could have always elected not to sell the rights to her book, especially if she was so concerned about certain core concepts. Artistic integrity aside I don't see her complaining about the check they wrote her.



Apparently she was very cautious about making such a deal; I'm sure she knows more than a few other authors who have been burned. She simply trusted the wrong people. She wasn't the first and won't be the last. They pulled a bait-and-switch on her, promising one writer and delivering another plus the obvious studio finagling. I'd say it's certainly not 'mock' outrage; it must be very painful to watch a work that you've poured your heart and soul into for decades misrepresented before millions of people that now and forever afterwards will always have that impression of your work.


----------



## Strithe (Dec 21, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Apparently she was very cautious about making such a deal; I'm sure she knows more than a few other authors who have been burned. She simply trusted the wrong people. She wasn't the first and won't be the last. They pulled a bait-and-switch on her, promising one writer and delivering another plus the obvious studio finagling. I'd say it's certainly not 'mock' outrage; it must be very painful to watch a work that you've poured your heart and soul into for decades misrepresented before millions of people that now and forever afterwards will always have that impression of your work.





I might be more forgiving if she were a younger author with little real-world experience.  This is a mature, educated woman who has dealt with "Hollywood" before.  Maybe she should have spent some time actually watching typical Sci-Fi-Channel fare instead of believing what some media exec told her (that's always a bad idea).  And in any case her books are far from "ruined", you can still get the Earthsea books in their orignal form with all the original ideas intact.  You can't say the same thing for, say, the original Star Wars Trilogy.  If anything even the "whitewashed" Earthsea may be a good thing for what she seems to be trying to do because an audience that otherwise might not ever have heard of her books at least knows they exist.

The point I was trying to make is that, just going by the essay, the only thing I got that made her books distinct is that they don't feature Caucasians.  From comments here that's obviously not the case, and I think she would have been better off talking about more specifics of what makes Earthsea special than harping on one facet and the fact that she feels betrayed.

Let's face it, even the most well-intentioned adaptation effort is going to undergo some degree of metamorphosis when it put into the film/video medium.  The beauty of books is that you get the work directly from the writer, filtered only by the editor(s).

Movies & TV shows have way too many egos involved.  You not only have the director & script-writer(s), but you have producers who think that their ability to dump money into TV projects suddenly makes them experts on art.  Then you have all the rest of the "talent", actors, costume designers, set desginers, casting directors, etc. who all have their own paticular ideas and agendas with regards the work.  The only time you avoid having a mess is in these situations is when one individual has the clout, ego, and stamina to keep things on-course as possible.

That really is the difference between a decent adaptation of a book, such as the Lord of the Rings movies, and a movie that bears little if any resemblance to the source material.


----------



## Storminator (Dec 22, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I didn't miss it, I just noted that their use in the television version bore little to no relationship to their use in the books.
> 
> _blah, blah, blah_
> 
> Not sure how you missed that.



 I didn't miss it. That's pretty much exactly what I said.



			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> It hit all the major points of the books, but completely missed the depth of the stories.



 See?

 Maybe you should try to be less deliberately antogonistic.

 PS


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 22, 2004)

Storminator said:
			
		

> I didn't miss it. That's pretty much exactly what I said.
> 
> 
> See?




Nope. Using the names of things, but having them relate to completely different things isn't "hitting all the high points of the books". It's "making stuff up and attaching a familiar name to them". Completely different.

You missed it.



> Maybe you should try to be less deliberately antogonistic.




It is spelled "antagonistic", and maybe you should reconsider what you mean by "hitting the high points", since that means something other than "calling something different by the same name".


----------



## Storminator (Dec 22, 2004)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is spelled "antagonistic", and maybe you should reconsider what you mean by "hitting the high points", since that means something other than "calling something different by the same name".



 Maybe what I meant was 







			
				Storminator said:
			
		

> ... but completely missed the depth of the stories.



 Obviously I misjudged your post. That has now been rectified.

 PS


----------



## Nifft (Dec 27, 2004)

See? This made-for-TV hack-job is so bad, even people who agree that it's a real stinker will fight _to the death_ for their vision of specifically how stinky it was, and who said that it was stinky first.

"Amulet of Peace" my ... elbow. Yeah.

 -- N, hoping Penguins do indeed have elbows


----------



## Mystery Man (Dec 27, 2004)

> *Ursula K. Le Guin* - My color scheme was conscious and deliberate from the start. I didn't see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill. I didn't see why everybody in heroic fantasy had to be white (and why all the leading women had "violet eyes"). It didn't even make sense. Whites are a minority on Earth now—why wouldn't they still be either a minority, or just swallowed up in the larger colored gene pool, in the future?



  Who the _hell_ says honky anymore?


----------



## Krieg (Dec 27, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Who the _hell_ says honky anymore?




Old hippies who haven't grown up.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 28, 2004)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Who the _hell_ says honky anymore?




Mostly us crackers.

 -- N, unhip


----------



## Cergorach (Dec 30, 2004)

Hmm... I 'aquired' the miniseries a week or two ago, but i didn't want to watch it before i read the book. So now, halfway through the first book, i thought let's watch the miniseries untill it catches upto the book (that was five minutes ago)...

After four minutes and 39 seconds i turned it off again, there were exactly two things i recognized, two names actually 'Ged' and 'Earthsea'. The rest looks like a bad Xena episode, it seems i'm not the only one.

I purposely didn't read much about it, but from what i've seen it seemed that the producers wanted people to say Earthsea in the same sentence as Lord of the Rings.


----------

