| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sidony
Pioneer
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 21 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - May 18 2003 : 10:57:58 PM
|
|
Do you like the book or film more? I prefer the film. It's been ages since I've read the book, and I have no particular desire to repeat the experience, but I can watch the film ANY time!:)
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 18 2003 : 11:06:28 PM
|
| I would have to agree with you, Sidony. I didn't read the book until after I saw the film and I have to say it was a struggle for me to get through it. And, like you, I wouldn't read it again but I can watch the movie over and over again....as I have done many times. |
Theresa |
report to moderator  |
|
|
morgaine
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 19 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 18 2003 : 11:49:18 PM
|
Definitely the film. Despite my love for the classics, the book is hard to read today. Even Mark Twain, in his time, poked fun at the book and Cooper's descriptions of life in the wilderness and his characterization of Hawkeye.
We are the lucky ones to have this gem of a movie and to be able to watch it over and over again. I think there are classic books where the romantic parts are as pleasurable to read as to see onscreen but LOTM is not one of them. Our movie IS romance!!!! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
chasis_22
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
April 19 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 19 2003 : 04:17:42 AM
|
| definitely the movie......funner to sit and watch the movie then get a back ache from sitting uo and reading the book. besides....the actors are excellent to watch. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lurking Huron8169
Anonymous Guest
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 20 2003 : 12:36:22 AM
|
| Its all about the book! It was hard as hell to read but it was worth it. The most important part was when Cora begged the chief to let her sister go in peace b/c "she is fair." I was not a hawkeye fan in the novel. I fact he was just this old guy while Uncas was the strong warrior who fell in love with Cora. I say that the novel makes more sense. The film is fun to watch. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 20 2003 : 07:02:54 AM
|
| Don't knock old guys, LH8169, there's a lot to be said for them. ;) |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ellie
Pioneer
United Kingdom
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 22 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 20 2003 : 07:30:30 AM
|
I think in a lot cases you have to seperate the book and the film and not compare them. If the film was accurate to the book, I dont think it would have worked as well, when making a film from a book you need to use your own artistic interpretation of how you see the stroy working on film and adjust it to work on screen as they are such different genres.
One of my favourite books, The Horse Whisperer is interpreted very differently by the film made by Robert Redford, however I love the film as much as I love the book and I understand that it would have been impossible to stay true to the book completely as it would not have worked, plus the film would need to be about 6 hours long and very boring in places.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Karen W
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 04 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 20 2003 : 7:20:15 PM
|
I have to agree with Ellie about this. I really did love the book (and I know I'm in the minority here!), but obviously I also love the movie. I just don't think you can really compare them as the movie is so different from the book. I liked all of the Leatherstocking books and have actually read LOTM twice since first seeing the movie about 4 years ago! Karen
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 20 2003 : 10:04:53 PM
|
Rich pointed out on another thread here that Mann based the film more on the 1936 film version than the book.
Actually, IIRC, he stated somewhere that he based the film on his memories of the '36 film, which were his earliest film memories. (Though I'm sure he had the script and film itself to 'refresh' his memory.)
I read the book, along with the rest of the Leatherstocking Tales quite a ways back (25-30 years ago, I think), and enjoyed them greatly. I've considered re-reading at least LOTM, and have gone to some of the tales a few times for references, but I think I would have to have a lot of time on my hands before I did any extensive re-reads. Ya really've got to be in the mood!
I believe Mann followed the plot-line of the book fairly closely, but has altered the characterization and spirit to the point where the film is truly a reflection of 1990's America filtered through his perception, just as the book was a reflection of 1820's America filtered through Cooper's perception.
|
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Pen
Colonial Settler
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
February 03 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 21 2003 : 12:15:53 AM
|
I tried to read LOTM recently, but just couldn't get into it at the time. You're right, Scott--you do have to be in the mood for it. I also found, because the style is um...antiquated, for lack of a better word right now  , that I had to really concentrate on the material. I'll try again when things aren't so stressful for me.
On a lighter note, I think it was part of the Leatherstocking Tales that I read back in high school American Lit class. It was weird being the only person on campus who could pronounce the name 'Chingachgook'. Everytime we came to the name, the teacher would point at me to have me say it  !
Pen |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - May 21 2003 : 06:00:45 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
Rich pointed out on another thread here that Mann based the film more on the 1936 film version than the book.
Actually, IIRC, he stated somewhere that he based the film on his memories of the '36 film, which were his earliest film memories. (Though I'm sure he had the script and film itself to 'refresh' his memory.)
Scott, he might have been inspired to do the project by his memories, but he actually purchased the rights to that film - and that becomes obvious if one compares the two ...
One thing to remember, obviously, when discussing "book or film". Without the book, there is no film ... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - May 21 2003 : 08:08:37 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
I believe Mann... has altered the characterization and spirit to the point where the film is truly a reflection of 1990's America filtered through his perception, just as the book was a reflection of 1820's America filtered through Cooper's perception.
Hmmmmmm..... Scott, you really got me a'thinkin on that one! 
I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but can I pull a "Huggy" here... and ask for clarification? Perhaps "elaboration" would be a better word, especially on the phrase "a reflection of 1990's America."
Hmmmmmmm..... |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 21 2003 : 10:26:35 AM
|
"I believe Mann followed the plot-line of the book fairly closely, but has altered the characterization and spirit to the point where the film is truly a reflection of 1990's America filtered through his perception, just as the book was a reflection of 1820's America filtered through Cooper's perception."
Scott, as a trained historian and archaeologist I must say you hit it right on. In fact all history is altered by the viewer's perception. We can dig up all the straight facts we want, but the way we put these facts together as narrative, as history, is directly affected by our perception as 21st century peoples. This applies not only to the historian, but also to the author writing about fictional events in a historical setting. Cooper's writing was a direct reflection of his 1820s perception of what women's roles were, who Indians where, who the ideal American hero was, what was important about the American landscape, etc. The differences between the novel and the film, is the difference between how Cooper in 1820s America viewed 1757 with his values and understanding, and how Mann and his 1990s understanding and values viewed 1757.
I really enjoyed reading Cooper. I read LOTM when I was in 8th graade, then in high school read The Deerslayer and The Pathfinder. I also read one of Cooper's first novels written before the "Leatherstocking tales", The Spy, about an American spy in New York during the Revolution. There were several things about the plot in Cooper's LOTM which I liked better than the film. |
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 22 2003 : 5:55:09 PM
|
Film. I couldn't get past page 5 of the book when I tried. I know some differences between the two, but I can watch the movie quicker than read the book. heh heh Don't get me wrong, I love to read, but not when I have to reread pages. Perhaps if I'd lived when it came out, I would have been able to read it. lol We have tv now that shows us what books describe, so I think we are a bit spoiled in that area. :)
|
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 22 2003 : 7:54:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by daire
... We have tv now that shows us what books describe, so I think we are a bit spoiled in that area. ...
For me, TV, or even a movie puts limits on what you can do with a story. A good book, or even a not-so-good one is more interactive, in the sense that you have to bring something to it. The flesh and bones, color, images, intonations, sounds, are more of your own creation.
For instance, when I was young I loved the Tolkien books. It was like entering my own world. I've resisted going to see the recent popular and acclaimed Lord of The Rings Movies. By all accounts, they're fairly "true" to the books, so my concern isn't that they took liberties with Tolkien. But "my" Middle Earth wasn't just Tolkien's, and I've seen enough to know that the movies don't come close to how I saw it. I also revisited "The Hobbit" a few years ago when I thought my son was old enough to hear the story. It wasn't the same. No magic. I believe my son has since found some of the magic on his own. I bought him the books, and he's seen the first movie.
I'm content to let my Middle Earth live where it belongs--a happy memory. But I suppose one of these days I'll relent and watch the movie when it comes around on TV. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 23 2003 : 7:57:01 PM
|
True, but we're also able to see what's described quicker ... what can take 2 pages to describe we can see in a few seconds. :) I get antsy with books bogged down in description, they just seem to drag.
I don't usually read books *after* I've seen a movie, but I recently (last 6 months or so) read the LOTR books and The Hobbit. Usually, because I like seeing the characters and surroundings in my mind's eye. I've read the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon and have such a clear picture of everything, I don't WANT them to make a TV miniseries (there was an option bought) and a casting director telling me what THEIR version of the characters look like. All these years I've heard the LOTR title, but never much about them...I knew there were Hobbits that were smaller than normal people, Gandalf, and a ring (and yet, somehow managed to figure out what the trailer was for before they said what it was lol). The Hobbit didn't do much for me, to tell the truth, and the others were good, though I kept seeing the movie versions because that's what has been put in my head. And the movies have been fairly close to the books, though things are left out, probably for time even though they are already 3 hours+. You'll probably miss a lot if you catch it on tv, more if it's network. There is an extra 45 minutes(?) on the extended version of FOTR.
Basically, in this fast paced world of hours...movies are quicker than a book. Doesn't mean that I don't read...I love reading. Just not when I have to trudge through the prose. Like Anne Rice... *Oy*
|
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 24 2003 : 04:56:18 AM
|
I haven't had much time for reading myself the last few years.
But the funny thing is, when there's something I really want to read, I seem to find the time.
I'm not big on vampires, but I loved Rice's Feast of All Saints.
Daire, I notice you seem to be a Highlander fan. Are you familiar with Sword Forum? It started out a few years ago as a Highlander forum, but is much more than that now. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 24 2003 : 05:06:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wilderness Woman
[quote]Originally posted by Scott Bubar
... I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but can I pull a "Huggy" here... and ask for clarification? Perhaps "elaboration" would be a better word, especially on the phrase "a reflection of 1990's America."
Hmmmmmmm.....
Wilderness Woman, I wrote a thoughtful and witty post yesterday in response to this, in which I neatly avoided actually answering your question.
Unfortunately, I don't see it here. Perhaps I neglect to hit that final "Post" button?
I'm just making my insomnia rounds at the moment, but if I find I have a surfeit of mental energy sometime this weekend, I'll give it another crack. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 27 2003 : 12:11:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
Daire, I notice you seem to be a Highlander fan. Are you familiar with Sword Forum? It started out a few years ago as a Highlander forum, but is much more than that now.
Oh, I'm a HL fan.  I've heard of the Sword Forum, and may have been there once upon a time. I don't think I have it bookmarked though. I usually hang around the Holyground forum set up by fans when the official site was closed.
If you've got the URL, I'd love to check it out.
|
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 28 2003 : 09:26:52 AM
|
| AH! WarAngel's site...I'm acquainted with the "Exclusive Pictures". LOL Thanks for the links! |
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - May 28 2003 : 8:44:43 PM
|
WarAngel! That takes me back.
Adrian's been out of the closet, so to speak, for years now.
Then he outed everyone else by imposing a real name rule on the forum. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lurking Huron2924
Anonymous Guest
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - June 01 2003 : 10:13:29 PM
|
Cooper is very hard to read. The Spy for instance was exciting for its day but today is dry as a bone in most parts as Cooper continues to drone on and on never completing the sentence at an opportune time the way I have done now. He repeats himself often too. He often repeats himself. For instance, in the Deerslayer, he often repeats himself.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
susquesus
Mad Hermit of the North Woods
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 03 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 26 2003 : 12:57:10 AM
|
| Tough, I wouldn't have read the book if I hadn't seen the film. And of the books it's not even my favorite, I liked Deerslayer, Pathfinder, and Prairie more than LOTM. It could have never happened but maybe in some parallel universe Michael Mann made a four hour version of the film that included the rest of the storyline. There's some sweet action not in the film, Hawkeye, Chingachgook, and Uncas tracking Magua all the way into Canada, Chingachgook re-united with the Delawares, Uncas bare-chested in paint sporting the tattoo on his chest striking the war post and leading a fierce Delaware war party against Magua. It's great to see Uncas take on the mantle of war captain, he's fierce and magnificent. There is some excellent ACTION in that book. Of course our short attention spans would have never allowed it and Mann's adrenaline pumping style might not have worked so well in a longer format. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
wlogwihlas
Pathfinder
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 25 2003
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 26 2003 : 10:50:41 AM
|
| i prefer the movie due to the ideas it gives me as a reenactor. i like to see all the different outfits and paint jobs. sometimes i get ideas from the movie for my own clothing. the historical accuracy in the covie is pretty good compared to alot of the historical movies coming out these days. |
hollow square...Now!!!
You probably are wondering why we are all gathered here today.
Look boys, we captured an "it". |
| report to moderator |
|
|
English Trader
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
June 25 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - September 26 2003 : 7:57:38 PM
|
THAT IS SO EASY! The movie. I enjoyed the book for what it was, but Chatty Natty drove me bananas. How could someone who talked incessantly like that prompt a movie like LOTM? In the book, he came across to me as silly rather than sensitive, as confused rather than controlled, and as full of hot air rather than heroism.
YHOS,
English Trader
quote:
Originally posted by sidony
Do you like the book or film more? I prefer the film. It's been ages since I've read the book, and I have no particular desire to repeat the experience, but I can watch the film ANY time!:)
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
Book or film?
