written for nz.general, but not posted in full

The difficulty in filming a book is that many people know the story and spot any differences.
And how do you condense a book that may take a week to read, on and off, into a couple of hours of film?
Jurassic Park made a great film technically, but didn't have the long build up of suspense that the book has.

Shakespeare, divided into Acts and Scenes, seems to have built in breaks for the TV ads. In the theatre of his day they probably had orange sellers etc wandering about in the breaks.

But to break a Greek tragedy with commercials would be fatal to the story.
I saw Sir Laurence Olivier in Oedipus years ago. If that was filmed it should be done as it was in the live theatre.
How would a modern film handle the action related by a messenger? Would they try to film what happened instead?
And how would they use the Chorus?

There was some criticism of Henry V being filmed years ago. Some people thought showing the actual battle scenes wasn't right.
And of course with Shakespeare any cuts or alterations in the language are immediately picked up by many people in the audience.

from nz.general

> basicly a school has decided that it is politically incorrect to give kids
> easter eggs so they give them Spring Spheres.
>
My reply:

Perhaps the school thinks Easter eggs are Christian. But surely they are
just a celebration of spring, from pagan times?
The Easter Bunny is an American idea. It wasn't around when I was a child.
We just had chocolate eggs and chickens, until the war and rationing
started.

What should small children be taught about the Easter story, especially the
events of Good Friday?
It's rather too gruesome for the little ones. When are they old enough for
the Bible version?
I still read it at Easter, even though I've been agnostic for years. Makes
you think that Death can really be conquered.

I remember the churches at Easter in England, full of spring flowers. Easter
in Spring is a celebration of Resurrection, after the long winter.
Here, an Autumn Easter is more of a promise. "If Winter comes, can Spring be
far behind?"
Not here in Auckland anyway.

from nz.general

> Is there such a thing as "true" fiction versus fictitious fiction?

My reply:


Yes, I think so.

There is historical fiction about real people, like the Tudors.

Then there is historical fiction about characters like Sharpe and
Hornblower, where the main characters are imaginary but the events are
mainly true. (Napoleonic Wars).

I would say historical fiction, if well researched, is "true" fiction.

All this Vampire stuff popular today is fictitious fiction and usually
ridiculous,
though the original "Dracula" by Bram Stoker (1897) is probably still the
best ever written, and well worth reading.

And then there is fiction that creates whole new worlds, like "Lord of the
Rings" and much Science Fiction.
It can be totally believable or utter rubbish, depending on the author's
skill.
Fictitious fiction at its best or worst.

"The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" seems to be "true" fiction, from the
amount of research, but I wonder.
I suppose it could be considered as "true" as Velikovsky's space theories.
("Worlds in Collision" etc.")
Plausible but unlikely?

I wonder what "Revelation" would be considered.
Today that probably wouldn't be taken literally by most people.