|
Amazon.com Originally broadcast as Legend of Earthsea in December 2004, the Sci-Fi Channel's four-hour miniseries of Earthsea rides the coattails of the Lord of the Rings trilogy with its quest-driven story of humble blacksmith Ged (Shawn Ashmore), a wizard-to-be who is mentored by the magical Ogion (Danny Glover) as he seeks to preserve the realm of Earthsea from the evil King Tygath (Sebastian Roché). Ged's adventures lead him to the priestess Tenar (Kristen Kreuk, from Smallville) and with secrets shared by High Priestess Thar (Isabella Rossellini), they gain the power to prevail over Tygath. As presented by Robert Halmi Sr. (producer of Merlin, Gulliver's Travels and several other fantasy miniseries), this skeletal rendering of Earthsea boasts a wealth of digital effects and semi-lavish set design, but Ashmore's lack of charisma hampers a production already fraught with problems. It provoked the wrath of fantasy fans and a firm rejection by author Ursula K. Le Guin, who had watched helplessly (she wasn't involved or consulted) as her classic novels A Wizard of Earthsea and The Tombs of Atuan were racially "whitewashed" (in Le Guin's words) nearly beyond recognition. As TV fantasy goes, Earthsea is admirably ambitious, but best enjoyed by those with no awareness of the classic books it is very loosely based on. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more Reviews (53)
LeGuin Prophecies.
In her foreward to "Tales from Earthsea," LeGuin comments on the difference between commercial fantasy and real art. Sadly, her remarks are nearly prescient, and clearly illuminate the great difference between the books and the movie:
"Commodified fantasy takes no risks: it invents nothing, but imitates and trivialises. It proceeds by depriving the old stories of their intellectual and ethical complexity, turning their action to violence, their actors to dolls, and their truth-telling to sentimental platitude. Heroes brandish their swords, lasers, wands, as mechanically as combine harvesters, reaping profits. Profoundly disturbing moral choices are sanitized, made cute, made safe. The passionately conceived ideas of the great story-tellers are copied, stereotyped, reduced to toys, molded in bright-colored plastic, advertised, sold, broken, junked, replaceable, interchangeable.
What the commodifiers of fantasy count on and exploit is the insuperable imagination of the reader, child or adult, which gives even these dead things life- of a sort, for a while.
Imagination, like all living things lives now, and it lives with, from, on true change. Like all we do and have, it can be co-opted and degraded, but it survives commercial and didactic exploitation. The land outlasts the empires. The conquerors may leave the desert where there was forest and meadow, but the rain will fall, the rivers will run to sea. The unstable, mutable, untruthful realms of Once-upon-a-time are as much a part of human history and thought as the nations in our kaleidoscocpic atlases, and some are more enduring."
Not a bad adaptation ...
It's just a bad film fullstop. I am a long time Le guin fan, but am not in the least bit purist. I wasn't expecting a faithful adaptation and was prepared to judge this film on its own merits. Unfortunately, with or without reference to the book this is a truly awful movie. Acting is so-so, the CGI is amateurish, the dialogue stinks (particularly so in the region of the denouement) and the narrative thread is an absolute tangle.
The way people seem to whizz from one end of Earthsea to the other by boat in a matter of minutes beggars belief and exposes the sheer incompetence of the screenwriters. Roke University is more Rowlings than Le Guin. The dragon Orm Embar lacked all context and would have been better left out altogether. Possibly the worst feature of all was the "nameless ones"; instead of the ancient beings of immense power and evil that the movie had been trying to build up to, we were given overgrown bats!
One of the Worst Adaptations of All Time
Early in 2004, the Sci-Fi Channel began extensive advertising for an epic TV miniseries entitled "Legend of Earthsea" that was allegedly based upon a series of beloved sci-fi/fantasy novels that had been written by Ursula K. Le Guin beginning in 1968.For many months, people's expectations grew as the December, 2004 premiere night drew close; but disappointment, shock and bewilderment were what the vast majority of viewers experienced upon watching the show.In fact, few who watched the first night of the miniseries bothered to watch the second.
What made the "Legend of Earthsea" miniseries so awful?First, the only resemblance between the miniseries and the "Earthsea" novels that Ursula K. Le Guin wrote was in name only.Essentially, what director Robert Lieberman and writer Gavin Scott did was to create a shallow reworking of Le Guin's original stories.Interviews with Ursula K. Le Guin indicate that neither Lieberman, Scott nor the Sci-Fi Channel was interested in consulting with her to ensure that their film adaptation was accurate.To demonstrate just how unconnected the miniseries was from the original books, here are some (but certainly not all) of the differences:
1. Ged (Shawn Ashmore) was the same age throughout the miniseries, but the novels follow him between the ages of 10 to 80.
2. Ged's solitary search for understanding in the books was replaced with a hackneyed "Lord of the Rings"-like epic, with Vetch (Chris Gauthier) taking on the role of a comic "Samwise Gamgee" to Ged's "Frodo Baggins".
3. In the miniseries, Ged, Vetch, Jasper (Mark Hildreth) and the the Archmagus (Alan Scarfe) were each played by white actors; but in the books, they were all black characters.Only Ogion (Danny Glover) was accurately portrayed.
Next, the acting in the miniseries was stilted and Wooden.Shawn Ashmore's acting was disengaging, uninspired and forced. Equally disappointing in their roles were Isabella Rossellini as "High Priestess Thar", Sebastian Roché as "King Tygath", Kristin Kreuk as "Tenar" and Alan Scarfe.Only Danny Glover was believable, though his part in the story was rather short. Of course, being a Sci-Fi Channel production, there was lots of CGI special effects throughout the miniseries; but just like so many failed sci-fi/fantasy films that predate "Legends of Earthsea" demonstrate, great special effects with a terrible story is still a terrible film.
In the end, the attempt by the Sci-Fi Channel, Robert Lieberman and Gavin Scott to capitalize on the success of such big-screen films like the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and "Harry Potter" series of films by taking Ursula K. Le Guin's superb novels and replace them with a watered-down, uninspired and unrelated piece of CGI rubbish was a complete failure.If you really want to know what the "Earthsea" stories are about, read Ursula K. Le Guin's original novels; but don't waste your time or money on purchasing the miniseries on DVD.My rating for the "Legend of Earthsea" miniseries is an unmitigated 1 out of 5 stars.The Sci-Fi Channel should publicly apologize to Ursula K. Le Guin for how they distorted her stories.
Betrayal of Intent
The TV producers bought the rights to the classic Earthsea books, turned the project over to an egotistical production crew who rewrote the plot, added gratuitous figures, missed the point of the book and the evolving series, and had the nerve to broadcast the resulting blood pudding.
They did not bother to consult the author (see her website if you don't believe me)
Almost as bad as the movie travesty of Fritz Lieber's Conjure Wife, from AAA book to sub B visual.
Read the books after viewing the movie
From the looks of it those rating this TV movie negatively, read the books. I caught this on cable TV a couple times and I found it reasonably enjoyable. Not the effects, acting, or music of the level of "The Lord of the Rings" but certainly far better than I have seen on several Fantasy TV series. Danny Glover and some of the other key actors I think turned in decent performances. The F/X aren't bad either, far from low budget ones like those used in the remakes of "Jason and the Argonauts" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth". I recommend this if you haven't read the books and you enjoy fantasy movies. Now of course I am sure the books are far better and seeing this movie I can now go read them and be really entertained all the more. I guess that is the down side of reading the books and then seeing the movie instead of the other way around. Suffice it to say I wish people would review the merit of the acting, sets, scenery, music, directing, special effects, et cetera, instead of how it didn't follow the book line for line. Keep in mind people are reading your review to find out if the movie is any good, they actually might not have read the book and it may not matter if the movie is like the book to them. I understand you avid readers being upset, but please don't dash a reasonable movie to pieces. If the movie does well it is more likely they will make more and then hopefully they will try harder to follow the books. If this one fails dismally it is not near as likely they will make more movies for several years. So even if it is only like the book in title, do not be hasty to slam the directing, acting, sets, music, F/X, et cetera. After I saw the movie I wanted to read the books and I intend to do just that. Then I'm sure I will see that this was not a good adaptation. That does not make it have no entertainment value or less valuable for getting peoples interest in the books or being better adapted for future movies.
... Read more
|