Movies changed from the book modern reference

http://www.courant.com/features/la-et-lorax-20120302,0,1468020.story?track=rss

March 2, 2012--Of all the movies in the world to refer to, this one gives away the ending to Moby Dick.

In a review of the new movie "Dr. Seuss' The Lorax" by Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times Film Critic, of all the movies to reference a change from the source material, he chose Moby Dick.

"Movies always have monkeyed around with their source material— a 1930 version of " Moby Dick" had Ahab kill the whale and return home to his girlfriend — but it's hard to remember one that actually apologized before the fact for what it was about to do."

He didn't choose the happy ending of Grisham's The Firm with Tom Cruise. He didn't choose some of the little things in the Lord of the Rings movies like Arwen, not the seriously bad changes in The Running Man movie, not even the horrible Supergirl movie, or probably hundreds of others. He chose Moby Dick.

This means that the basic plot is ubiquitous. Especially the ending is known to all, I remember guessing so horribly when my teacher in seventh grade asked me what happened to Ahab (I sheepishly and in full question-voice muttered, "He died?"). I basically got it right, didn't I?

The thing is that the reviewer's opening statement ruins two items if the reader had never experienced them before--the 1930 movie and the book, because the ending of the book has to be opposite. However, the reviewer probably also chose these because no one today will take the time to see a 1930 movie (you know what I mean--there is a specific audience that watches old 1930s movies and most of today's populace simply will not watch movies in black and white anymore) and no one, NO ONE, will read the book of Moby Dick anyway. So this was a safe choice because nobody needs spoiler warnings for Moby Dick.

And I see what the reviewer is driving at. The Lorax apparently comes right out and says it is going to be different than the original book. It probably has to, especially after the horrors that were the live-action Grinch Who Stole Christmas and The Cat in the Hat. See, now nobody can simply come out and say that it was just too different from the book version. Well, they told you it was gonna be different!

I have to hunt down that 1930 Moby Dick now. Let's go see if it is at Archive.org.

Hakugei volume 3

Hakugei volume 3

Very cool as they plunge down to the planet that Moby Dick comes at them from below to destroy their ship. Very cool.

Their ship, Lady Whisker, sinks, just like the Pequod.

The sci-fi is really interesting, even though it has no real relationship to the Moby Dick novel. I don't understand the entire concept of the android Dew character in any relation to the novel but it is really cool here if you don't think about the book.

This is just another reason overall why they even wanted to have the name Moby Dick as the planet-destroying cannon. Couldn't they have kept the themes without using that name?

Marato is a cool villain that looks like Dr. Robotnik.

Hakugei volume 2

Hakugei volume 2

Ahab just seems too personable, too buddy-buddy, for a true Moby Dick interpretation. He's like a Captain Harlock. They talk about him and say he has "personality defects" but they still love him.

Space Pachinko!

The detective White Hat is "looking for the big one [criminal--Ahab] that got away." Detective White Hat whipped him in prison and after Ahab escaped, he went looking for him. Ahab seems to have more reason to go after White Hat than the white whale. Now amazingly, he joins the crew and they are all buddy-buddy.

Then they are having little side adventures while still pursuing their ultimate goal. So that is a lot like the novel Moby Dick. However, I am liking this anime series.

Hakugei--now Moby Dick is anime too!

Sometimes I just search for "Moby Dick." I search through multiple search engines. I even search through Netflix to see what movie versions I come up with.

I found an anime version of Moby Dick:

Hakugei: Legend of the Moby Dick from 2005

I was really pleased with this.

With Crunchyroll and Netflix through my Roku, the device that streams internet video into my TV, I have been watching a ton of anime. So it is only natural that I also watch the anime version of Moby Dick.

Taking place in the year 4699, the whale hunters are actually space wreckage salvagers. Since the wreckage, coined as "whales," moves pretty fast, they go after it like the harpooners in their little boats. That is a pretty neat update idea. And anime can show it really well.

Moby Dick is a giant robot in space, in actuality, a Federation cannon capable of destroying a planet. So now it is Death Star Moby Dick. Pretty cool.

It is very Blade Runner-esque. It's not the prettiest of space worlds and that is cool.

There is the Nantucket Nebula; the Ishmael character says "Call me Lucky" in the beginning, even soliloquizing like the Ishmael of the book; Ahab has quite a cool lead-up and entrance; Queequeg is a nice yet powerful giant already on the crew.

In Episode 3, the crew remarks that Ahab has had obsessions before: "'Another obsession begins...Oh, no, not another one.'"

It is really interesting when Ahab and Lucky are talking about the Moby Dick cannon threatening the world of Moab and Ahab going berzerk, shouting, "'Twas whiter than snow, wasn't it." He also shouts, "Just as I thought: The Great White is alive!" Then the tale of Ahab losing his left eye and leg is related.

The only thing I don't understand so far is the android character of "Dew." He had a run-in with the Moby Dick in the opening of the first episode, with the whale implanting some device into his chest. Moby Dick tells him, "You will become me and I will become you. We are now joined by a strong bond." It's okay if Dew has nothing to do with the original book but it is another intriguing aspect.

I have just watched the first disc but I really liked it. Great animation and the story is well done. Maybe this is also the power of a tale like Moby Dick. If you can bring it out of its original setting and begin again, then it is a powerful tale that truly cuts across borders. Like updating Shakespeare into different settings, this works.

Somebody else is wondering...

Book Buzz: Why Read Moby-Dick?

Book Buzz: Tension City, Why Read Moby-Dick?:

I love it--it's now a book. Why Read Moby-Dick?

Nathaniel Philbrick is a great writer in his own right. I really enjoyed his book about the whaleshipEssex--it completely captivated me, and I usually don't like non-fiction at all.

The author of this article calls the book "a passionate and convincing text." There is no personal opinion on Moby Dick itself.

But check out this "argument." If I had a student write this, I would have the student express why the quote proves the point:

"but when he quotes Melville, the text soars and Melville’s prose becomes Philbrick’s best argument for reading the book: 'While gliding through these latter waters that one serene and moonlight night, when all the waves rolled by like scrolls of silver; and, by their soft, suffusing seethings, made what seemed a silvery silence, not a solitude. ... '"

Yes, I agree, that sentence is awesome. Should we consider Moby Dick just a long, great sounding poem then? The term novel just doesn't fit then anymore, especially if you consider structure.

I love how this piece ends:

If anyone is still awaiting the arrival of The Great American Novel(s), give it up. They have already been written. The first is “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and the second is “Moby-Dick, or, The Whale.”

I just taught Huck Finn and didn't have a great experience either. But Huck Finn has a narrative structure.

Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/book-buzz-tension-city-why-read-moby-dick/article_2a1af0ce-43df-11e1-a093-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1kK9zO3mz

'via Blog this'

Jack Aranson's stage play of Moby Dick

Through Netflix of all places, I was able to rent a DVD of a taping of the 1978 stage version of actor Jack Aranson's one-man play version of Moby Dick, directed by Paul Stanley.

I just don't get it.

This is a 2003 DVD release of a 1978 stage play. We can't even get some new movies on DVD and they put this out on DVD (for instance, I have been trying to track down a copy of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World starring Leonard Nimoy from the late 1990s but it has never been released on DVD--it boggles my mind).

The first thing you see on the disc is a title screen of a whale fluke with the words: "Moby Dick--American's greatest novel"--complete with whale song.

It's a one-man play. He plays all the characters, including just switching back and forth. The lines are wonderfully delivered. If you didn't know, you'd think it was a Shakespeare play. At least that gives credence to the wonderful language aspect of the book.

The one-man play is not a genre that I'm used to.

No matter how well acted it is, I'm still bored as I watch it. No matter how well delivered, or how much I personally am into this simply to write about it, I wonder who watches this stuff, who goes to the real theater for this, or who re-releases it on DVD in 2003, twenty-five years after the original production.

Am I the uncivilized one? Is this high class art that the bourgeois watch?

I mean, at least you know that a Hamlet soliloquy is going to end and the action of the play go on.

This actor really must love this completely. That is clear. Deciphering who is who is quite easy if you pay attention. I think he did a remarkable job with the material.

But it is the material that I ponder on. Besides some Twain and Poe, what else is delivered like this?

It is just fascinating that this is even out there.

I found this quote about the whole thing at http://www.takomapark.info/library/mt/archives/002204.html

Update: Look for Jack Aranson's one-man stage play. A gem, and available on DVD.

"Years from now acting classes and scholars will be studying this film for its power in bringing the immortal words of Herman Melville to life." IMDB: Moby Dick (1978) (streaming trailer)

Book called "Why Read Moby-Dick"

Book Buzz: Why Read Moby-Dick?

Book Buzz: Tension City, Why Read Moby-Dick?:

I love it--it's now a book. Why Read Moby-Dick? I am going to have to find this book.

Nathaniel Philbrick is a great writer in his own right. I really enjoyed his book about the whaleshipEssex--it completely captivated me, and I usually don't like non-fiction at all.

The author of this article calls the book "a passionate and convincing text." There is no personal opinion on Moby Dick itself.

But check out this "argument." If I had a student write this, I would have the student express why the quote proves the point:

"but when he quotes Melville, the text soars and Melville’s prose becomes Philbrick’s best argument for reading the book: 'While gliding through these latter waters that one serene and moonlight night, when all the waves rolled by like scrolls of silver; and, by their soft, suffusing seethings, made what seemed a silvery silence, not a solitude. ... '"

Yes, I agree, that sentence is awesome. Should we consider Moby Dick just a long, great sounding poem then? The term novel just doesn't fit then anymore, especially if you consider structure.

I love how this piece ends:

If anyone is still awaiting the arrival of The Great American Novel(s), give it up. They have already been written. The first is “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and the second is “Moby-Dick, or, The Whale.”

I just taught Huck Finn and didn't have a great experience either. But Huck Finn has a narrative structure.

Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/book-buzz-tension-city-why-read-moby-dick/article_2a1af0ce-43df-11e1-a093-001871e3ce6c.html#ixzz1kK9zO3mz