Similar to the book?
-
Prof_Lostiswitz — 20 years ago(December 25, 2005 10:35 AM)
The other GT movies are absolutely rotten - they try to turn the story into light comedy. I'm especially cross with the Fleischer animated version, since Fleischer had produced such intelligent cartoons earlier in the 1930s.
Compared with the book, it is about as good. The book has some wonderful prose passages not in the movie; but a lot of it deals with 18th century politics, and needs footnotes to explain it. I recommend the book and the movie together. -
xylonian-1 — 20 years ago(March 06, 2006 01:59 PM)
Thanks for comments.I thought this movie was great. I did try reading it oncebut didn't get too far. Maybe I'll give it a second chance.
"The most detestable habit of Lilliputian minds is to suppose that others are equally petty." -
never_mind_the_darkness — 20 years ago(March 12, 2006 07:07 PM)
Unless I am very mistaken, the subplot with Gulliver's wife, the other doctor, and the asylum definitely do not happen in the book. From what I understand, Gulliver is supposed to deal with mostly benign humans, so that even though he sees them as terrible because of his journeys (especially his dealings with the Houyhnhms -sp?), they largely are persuaded to believe him, help him out, and take care of him. So I think the (very large) subplot in the miniseries somewhat changes the message of Mr Swift's satire
As for the rest, there are little things, but mostly it sticks to the book. (For example, with the Strulbrugs or whoever that live forever, in the book, they have everlasting life but not everlasting youth, so they get older and older and cranky and fall apart, etc. ). But mostly all they do is cut bits out, not completely change them around.
Anyhow. The miniseries is interesting, but I wouldn't recommend using it as a substitute for the book if you have to write an essay or anything for school!
cheers,
~eRin *.] -
xylonian-1 — 20 years ago(March 13, 2006 12:07 PM)
"Unless I am very mistaken, the subplot with Gulliver's wife, the other doctor, and the asylum definitely do not happen in the book."
Thanks, I didn't think soat least I didn't remember any of it through the part I did read..maybe I'll have to give it a try again..
"The most detestable habit of Lilliputian minds is to suppose that others are equally petty." -
xylonian-1 — 20 years ago(April 01, 2006 12:52 PM)
Well OK.I made that move and checked it out of the library. It isn't as long as I remembered. Have only read a little so far, but the movie did take a lot of "poetic licence" which it must (IMO) to produce a movie which was this good (also my opinion)
"No, you can't go back to Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople" -
Psyche-8 — 19 years ago(October 20, 2006 07:11 AM)
There are similarities and differences. For instance, the whole subplot with Gulliver and his wife trying to prove his sanity is not in the book. A lot of what happens in the book does happen in the film in some way though. A few minor differences are things like, in Brobdingnag it's the King not the Queen that Gulliver deals with and Gulliver's Houynhm friend is a male in the book (called 'Master'). The film also omits certain parts, such as in Lilliput, Gulliver actually goes and visits the Big Enders (who also have their own emporer I think).
"He murders his wife every night. Other than that, I think he's pretty harmless." -
Prof_Lostiswitz — 19 years ago(November 15, 2006 11:21 AM)
The whole Struldbrugs episode is very much expanded from the novel and improved IMHO. In the novel, the Struldbrugs are people condemned to live for ever, while still growing decrepit. The movie elevates it to Wagnerian grandeur.
The sorcerer (Omar Sharif) is an invention of the film - he does a very nice job with it, this too is an improvement over the book. -
rodocrosit — 13 years ago(June 13, 2012 11:36 AM)
I think it's a very good attempt at interpreting the novel, even with the artistic liberties.
The novel was essentially a satire of contemporary social, political, and religious society, that would be very hard to translate into a film. The thing about Swift's satire (and satire in Augustan literature in general) is that the readers need to understand 18th century British history more than the readers of other literary periods do - it's funnier when you know what is being satirized.
I'm not sure this novel can be made into a film with the same feel. I don't think this film captured the essense of the novel, but I didn't really mind, because that wasn't what I expected, I just really wanted to see these worlds and creatures come to life on screen, and the film really gave me that.
It had soul. Not Swiftian, but good enough.