It would be interesting to know who would be the best at turning a book into a movie.
I didn't like Stanley Kubrick (Sp?) although he was considered a genius. There was just something depression about his portrayals. Most "for t.v" fantasies have turned me off. I thought Merlin and Hercules paid way too much time on "Fantastical" but predictable effects, and didn't spend nearly enough time on plots and character development. In these cases, the major networks had the budgets, but not the formula.
I didn't see all of "Earthsea". I didn't like the beginning, but liked much of the middle, and still need to see the end. My feelings on Earthsea, was "Why not invest, and go all the way". Some parts of it were well constructed. A few parts were lacking. In the beginning of the story, they had way too little cast to give it the feel of "realness" it needed, and I think the show suffered, only because of "Budget".
Likewise, I think "The Thirteenth Warrior," had lots of well done parts, but way too small a cast for what could have been a great epic story. I liked much of the story, except for the ending, which I think they tried to tie up way to fast, and sloppy.
So, I can't say it's "The directors" in some cases, but trying to make a movie with too small of a budget. And really dark stories need a director that brings in some light. I think Spielburg went too dark with AI and ???
But I would certainly like to have the Weta Workshop and the rest of the support people, and Mr. Shore writes lovely music (even if parts of the LOTR soudtrack sound like something from Braveheart).
