MovieChat Forums > The Thorn Birds (1983) Discussion > author disliked both movies

author disliked both movies

posted 13 years ago by ilahilda
16 replies | jump to latest

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1167375/Instant-vomit-The-Thorn-Birds-author-gives-damning-verdict-iconic-TV-series.html

Although it's her right to dislike a movie version of her work, I think Colleeen M was downright rude with her comments. She's proof if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say nothig at all. I did not know her input was absent durig the production of the film. I don't know the story behind that, but that was wrong of the producers.

[–] thepoet26 13 years ago

That's funny because this is honestly one of those rare instances where I actually prefer the movie to the book.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo

[–] ginda2000 13 years ago

I watched the mini series years ago, before reading the book. I read the book and found it to be one of the best novels I had ever read. It's a brilliant epic tale of generations of one family.

The mini series took the elements but constructed it like a love story between a priest and a young girl. They heightened that drama way more than McCulloch had done in the novel.

Ralph is actually a quite cunning and somewhat dark character in the book, whilst Meggie is certainly not as wooley as she comes across in the mini-series. She's a pretty weathered and capable woman.

It was actually a waste of a great book that it wasn't simply turned into a long running TV series and the whole story shown fully. It just couldn't work within such a short television time frame as a mini series.

[–] thbryn 13 years ago

Most authors aren't satisfied with screen adaptations. This was done on the cheap with a Ca location and mostly US cast. McCullough can complain but the essentials they got right.
It wasn't perfect but it had a huge audience and the acting was first rate.

[–] windycheryl 11 years ago

ginda2000,
A long running TV series may have done the book more justice. I read the book years ago, but I am now watching the mini-series for the first time. The characters in the book (and in my imagination) are much better than the actors chosen for the movie. I will watch this mini series now because I have it recorded. When it is done I will content myself rereading the book to ease the disappointment.

Take a chance, flip a coin, everything is 50/50

[–] Clemencedane 12 years ago

She does have a certain winning outspokenness. As hard as it might be to be a close friend of hers, from a distance I find her curmudgeonliness and lack of tact quite refreshing. And it doesn't have to stop anyone else from liking the mini-series.

[–] thbryn 12 years ago

Ralph (Tv) didn't have to look like Ralph (in the novel). Neither did Meggie. I thought Chamberlain was brilliant and Ward was erratic but good overall and the really good scenes outweighed the bad.

While I can see some things that would make CM wince she should be pleased that one of the most successful novels of the latter part of the 20 Century was seen by just about everyone in the West that wanted to view it.

[–] kurtlodernot 8 years ago

I LOVE watching and reading interviews with McCullough. I understand her disgruntlement much of the time about things, particularly adaptations of her work. I wish there were more of her TV interviews from days past on YouTube.

[–] Prismark10 11 years ago

McCulloch's rather well known for her plain talking!

Its that man again!!

[–] overseer-3 11 years ago

McCulloch's book was magnificent but so was the mini-series. She wasn't a movie producer, director, scriptwriter, etc. so if everything was left to her she would have made a royal mess out of a film version.

Margaret Mitchell wrote Gone With The Wind visualizing Errol Flynn as Rhett, not Clark Gable. The entire film would have been a different animal without Clark Gable's performance.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rikajessie 11 years ago

I have a feeling most writers don't like the movies unless they have their hand in it, because they don't want any word changed from their book. But it's unrealistic for them to think that some changes aren't going to be made. I loved this movie, I think it was great even if not an exact adaptation from the book.

And if it wouldn't have been for this movie, I and probably many others, never would have even heard of the book. Nor had an interest in reading it if the movie was just an exact adaptation. I've checked out books I never read based off of movies just FOR the differences, to see what was different.

[–] giadapazazz 11 years ago

The mini-series was developed for mass appeal,($$$), ergo, a love story.

Colleen McCullough's novel was an accurate depiction of Australians, generationally and culturally. It was also an accurate depiction of the Catholic Church, it's priests and bishops who courted wealthy widows in hopes upon their death, of bringing added funds into the church coffers.

Fr Ralph was not a man torn between true love and the church, but an opportunist who eventually and without self-realization, suffered the pains of losing a child and his soul.

Miscast, yes, Chamberlain plays a, "soft male with a good heart." This was not Fr Ralph, who was a dynamic male with an abundance of hubris and testosterone.

The novel can be read repeatedly, whereas, the mini-series has it's only value in the opening music.

[–] thbryn (230) 3 years ago

"only value in the opening music."
It got huge ratings. Probably 1 in every 4 people watching tv in the US was viewing this. It wasn't for the theme song.

[–] Mustang (5422) 3 years ago

I can understand that. Rachel Ward was terrible.

The accents were all over the place as well.