fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2384 ]

[ SECRET POST #2384 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2384 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 086 secrets from Secret Submission Post #341.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Since I caught Stevenson fever, I'm just going to bring in a more popular work; Kidnapped is, of course, obscure and poorly liked. (rather to my regret)

Treasure Island seems to be much luckier when it comes to filming adaptations; I have not seen a single version of Kidnapped that was entirely to my liking, but in this case I saw three excellent works (having watched five).

The 1934 turned out to be brilliant; although Jim was just a wee bit stupider than I thought him upon reading the book, and all the actors had this peculiar accent that sounded as though each of them had a pan full of stew on their face and had to speak through it. [Jim's was the fullest one, by the way]. There's also an extremely handsome and very much in-character Dr. Livesey and a picturesque Silver. Of course this adaptation developed the relationship between Hawkins and Silver far beyond the constraints set by the original work; but I cannot blame it for doing so; this seems to be the part that has the most potential to be developed into something interesting, what with Silver's moral ambivalency.

[To my mind, more's the pity. I friend-ship Dr. Livesey and Jim like burning, and it makes me bitter that none of the adaptations pays as much attention to this dynamics as they do to that of Silver and Jim]

The Disney (film) version is also very, very good and quite canonical; my only complaint is that everyone appeared to be strangely clean for a party that went a-treasure-hunting on an empty wild island.
And of course the last remark of Dr. Livesey's is adorable. Awww.
I don't know why they had to injure Jim, though - was it to make the film more dramatic? But it failed to add any drama that was absent in the previous adaptation, in which things went the way they were in the canon.

More versions in the comments, I think; what's your opinion on Treasure Island adaptations, f!s? The crazy Soviet animation? The equally crazy 2012 version?..

[and I've always wanted Blind Pew to be more expressive and frightening than in the films! The only one that succeeded was, I think, the 1982 Soviet one. And the only version in which Black Dog actually looks like a black dog is the one from 1934. Wasted potential, if you ask me.]

The equally crazy 2012 version? Do you mean the Sky1 version with Eddie Izzard? I didn't think that was crazy at all but I haven't read the book in a very, very long time. I loved that adaptation though and it's far and away my absolute favourite.

Yes, I meant that one. Sorry, it seems I've used some pretty harsh words while writing about it :D It looked completely ridiculous to me.
Different strokes for different folks! But I'd be very interested to hear about the aspects of it that you liked.

This is just LOL and failure from the beginning to the end. At first it looked nice, what with a different take on the character of Livesey; although it can hardly be called canonical in any regard, I liked the way they made him bashful and somewhat cowardly. [yeah, I know. Canon!Doctor has, like, to run away to the Moon in order for the distance between him and the hero of the 2012 film to represent in any way the abyss of difference between them.]

But then it all went awry?? Things began to look uncanny when Silver turned out to be a K-pop star with tons of eyeliner, but this was bearable; an "I just took a shower and shaved nicely but I'm totally mad" Ben Gunn made me despondent; no friendly interaction between Jim and Livesey, Jim cooperating with the pirates, Jim caring more about Silver than about anyone else?

And then the Trelawney scene just made me laugh out loud. I mean, Jim starts to throw the treasure overboard, everyone WTFs, then Livesey says that it's okay (in what way is it all right?! His practice is surely ruined, and they're all done for without this money!), then Trelawney jumps overboard - and what is the reaction of the rest of the characters? - there's no reaction. You can look at the sky, and perhaps you'll be able to spy a fuck that flies high above your head, the one that they give about the squire's fate.

They- they actually proceed with throwing the treasure into the sea despite the fact that Trelawney is going to be hit by it and drown. [so he does, so he does]

The vast amount of shitty symbolism doesn't help things, not at all.

My opinion on Treasure Island adaptations is that Treasure Planet was the best one.

Then again, it's hard to do that particular story wrong. It has a lot of good elements to it.

Same.

I liked the one with Tim Curry and Billy Connelly myself, it had the best soundtrack.

And the one in space with Ernest Borgnine as Silver, which was kinda wierd, but a fun watch as a Sunday morning serial when the school was out.

I liked the 2012 one. The cast was amazing and I liked seeing so many familiar faces together. I especially loved seeing some of them cast against type. I don't really care about Treasure Island movies being a flawless and exact replica of the book and based on your post, it sounds like that's what you want.

Nope, these are quite different things. I like non-canonical adaptations of things (and Stevenson's works) as well as the canonical ones, but I thought the 2012 film was poorly made and the characters acted very unrealistically? Also, the film kept shoving its moral down my throat, which was mightily annoying.

You like what you like, anon. I absolutely do not claim that anyone has to share my opinion on the matter, and indeed it does not influence my own opinion of people in any way. If anything, it's very interesting that there are so many of those who liked the thing.

I'm not a fan of the Batman franchise myself, so I can't claim I was charmed by the mere fact, but he looked nice and played his role quite well.

One of these canonical adaptations that seem to lack any sparkle of creativity. This is not to say that the film is bad; it is one of the best ones, so far as it concerns faithfulness to the original work and technical quality of the production itself. It seemed, however, slightly dull to me. Yes, everything is correct. Yes, everything is the way it was in the book. Is it just as exciting as the book itself? Not nearly. Frankly, if somebody asked me as to why I think it dull, I wouldn't be able to give a precise answer; if I watched it anew, perhaps.

Muppets Treasure Island!

Muppet Treasure Island FOREVER!!!!

Seems I'll have to watch this one, in any event. Possibly along with Sheerluck Holmes.

This!

In an answer to the folks upthread.

The Soviet version of 1982 is not, to my mind, a faithful adaptation (no matter what Wikipedia says). Jim is laughably little - no wonder they didn't make him kill people - and it would be just as laughable when he talks about torture, had it been not for the good and believable acting; Livesey is also younger than he should be; Billy Bones is not scary at all, and he doesn't make people sing "Fifteen men...". Finally, Silver dies. This is about as non-canonical as it gets. [I am not talking about the Disney animation, for I'm still to see it - and I am looking forward to doing so]

There's quite a bit of Soviet flavour to it, which is especially obvious in the way every antagonist suffers and every protagonist cheers. Also, death is handled rather non-sentimentally, and there are even elements of dark comedy to be seen. This being said, Silver is still a very ambiguous character, and sometimes even more so than in more canonical adaptations.
Overall, I've seen better pieces of Soviet cinematograph (I think this one is slightly too discrete), but this is quite, quite decent. And I like the whiles when we can see Jim's fantasies and fears.

before reading the book, my elementary school took us to see a local production in a theater, where jim was actually a girl crossdressing (she was conflicted about lying to her new friends, the pirates, but had so much fun with them) but then lost their friendship when they discovered her gender

it was awesome and sad

then years later i read the book and was disappointed

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2384 ]

Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

2012

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

1990: There's Christian Bale

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions

USSR (film): Not Canon But Good

Re: Treasure Island: Screen Versions