Kelley Armstrong Forums Back to Kelley Armstrong site
April 18, 2014, 11:32:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitten: The Movie  (Read 75636 times)
NluvwitClay
Neophyte

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« on: August 14, 2003, 12:21:35 PM »

Im not sure if you guys already discussed this, but i heard that they were gonna make a movie outta this (bitten or stolen?).
I almost think that they should leave it just as a book, (no offense). Just because i dont want them to mess it up, or to make it look really lame.

My sister was at a book store and a clerk person told her they were gonna make the movie for it, and that anjelina jolie (spell that right?) was gonna be elena. Is that true? I couldnt imagine her doing that role. For one, she isnt a blond, and as elena comes off as, well, i dunno, buisness first, playtime later? Anyway, Angelina Jolie (spell that right?) comes off as playtime all the time. No taking care of buisness or being serious, and not as indepenant as elena appears to be.

Now dont think that i have anything against Angelina, but she already did Tomb Raider, cnt someone else do this?

I dunno, maybe that person that told my sister that was just a wacko or something, but please inform me with the right information.
Logged
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2003, 11:11:15 AM »

Warner Bros. have bought the movie rights for bitten, Jolie has signed on, they have a screen writter. but who really knows  if they will ever make it into a movie. they have had the rights for over a year and they really have not gone any further as far as i know. So we are just waiting to see

Ryan
Logged
WBrueckman
Demi-god
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1126


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2003, 09:57:53 AM »

I was wondering if Kelley knew of any further developments regarding the making of the 'Bitten' movie.  I looked on Movies.com and it had the movie listed as coming out in 2003, but I knew that couldn't be correct.  They also had it listed as Horror/Thriller/Action.  I'm not sure I would agree with the Horror part of the listing.

My hope is that the 'Underworld' movie would prove to be popular (and a money-maker) so that it might stimulate progress towards making the Angelina Jolie 'Bitten' movie.
Logged
Aryessa
OWG Member
Master
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 387


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2003, 01:07:07 PM »

Yeah, all the upcoming movies sites all seem to be stagnant.  The most information they have about them is the director and that Jolie is going to be in it.

I think this is a thread elsewhere, but I'd love to see if Kelley has any updated info.
Logged
Kelley
Administrator
Deity
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5298


Author


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2003, 08:12:34 PM »

No news.  Last I heard (which was a few weeks ago) it's still an active project, still moving forward into casting and scheduling.  When I hear more, I'll definitely post it.
Logged

Project Status
Blackwell 3 - Thor's Serpents - awaiting final edits
Forsaken - awaiting edits
Cainsville 3 - first draft delivered
Tess's Secret - first draft done
Age of Legends 3 - first draft done

Currently working on...
editing Empire of Night while writing a just-for-fun book - everything's done so I'm playing
Bella
Neophyte

Offline Offline

Posts: 5



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2003, 02:09:55 AM »

Is it true that Johnny Depp was chosen to play Clay? If so, I think that Johnny and Angelina would be the PERFECT match, as actors and as Clay and Elena!  :yes
Logged
Kelley
Administrator
Deity
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5298


Author


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2003, 09:31:03 AM »

Okay, I've started hearing this Johnny Depp rumour and though I LOVE it, it's one of those 'too good to be true' things.  Can you tell me where you heard this?
Personally, I'd support giving JD any darned role he wanted in anything based on my books, no matter what he did with the part.  The man is a character genius.  I've been a fan since Edward Scissorhands and only now does he seem to be getting the attention he deserves.  Saw 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico' on the weekend, and by the end, I didn't care about Antonio Banderas's character...I just wanted to know what happened to JD's character!
Logged

Project Status
Blackwell 3 - Thor's Serpents - awaiting final edits
Forsaken - awaiting edits
Cainsville 3 - first draft delivered
Tess's Secret - first draft done
Age of Legends 3 - first draft done

Currently working on...
editing Empire of Night while writing a just-for-fun book - everything's done so I'm playing
Bella
Neophyte

Offline Offline

Posts: 5



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2003, 01:23:32 PM »

I'm a moderator on this site, souliejolie.com , it's a site dedicated to Angelina Jolie and the best, anyways, one of our members posted this:

Quote
I got this from a johnny depp messageboard (johnnydeppfan.com) I thought it was interesting. The person who posted it was called miss swann, i hope she doesn't mind me borrowing it!

-----------------------------------

LOL, firstly, please do not think this is some big lie, because it isn't at all, but I'm so excited I can't contain myself.

Has anyone read the book "Bitten" by Kelley Armstrong? (It may have only been released in America, I'm not sure) it's about werewolves. Well anyways, (this sounds crazy and mixed up) but my friend's mom knows the woman who wrote the actual book. And she has signed on with, I belive it was Miramax Pictures, to produce a movie. Angelina Jolie was in talks for the lead female werewolf role, Elena, and they've been outta their heads thinking of someone to do the lead male werewolf. Well, guess who's name came up, JOHNNY DEPP! Anyways, I know it sounds highly unlikely because of his busy movie line up, but it would be really awesome if he was cast for it, or even anyone else! But when this movie's in progress, I'll get to go with my friend and her mom to the set and everything. I'm really excited, and if you're a reader, you should really check out the book, it's awesome!!
Logged
WBrueckman
Demi-god
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1126


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2003, 09:12:59 AM »

This is probably a very stupid question and shows my ignorance of the movie-making process but I wonder what a screenplay actually is.  That is, what will be the differences between the screenplay and the actual book?  How close is the movie likely to be to the book?

One of the reasons I ask is that on movies.com, the 'Bitten' movie is listed as being in the horror genre and one of the wonderful things about the book is that I don't think it follows that genre at all.  I suppose the book is unique in the telling of werewolf stories which is one of the most appealing aspects of it....and I hope that the movie stays faithful to the book.
Logged
Angilion
Deity
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10943

Master of a hot bath and a nice cup of tea.


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2003, 02:49:54 PM »

Quote
How close is the movie likely to be to the book?


On the basis of other book to film conversions, probably not all that close.  They rarely are.  The Harry Potter ones may be an exception because, AFAIK, the author played a major role in the making of the films.  That's rare, strange though it sounds.

If you want a topical example, read one of the Lord of the Rings   books (or one section of the book, depending on whether you see the original as one book or three) and then watch the film with the same title.  They are perhaps a 90% match with perhaps 50% of the book, with a few scenes thrown in that weren't in the book at all.  In each of the first two films, one of the characters is completely different to how they were in the book (Arwen, Gimli).  The LotR films are generally considered to be a close match to the book (or books, depending how you want to view the original), and they are compared to many conversions from book to film.
Logged

Sage: The Dark Dryad
Neophyte

Offline Offline

Posts: 9



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2003, 08:02:53 PM »

Quote (Angilion @ Oct. 05 2003,14:49)
Quote
How close is the movie likely to be to the book?


On the basis of other book to film conversions, probably not all that close.  They rarely are.  The Harry Potter ones may be an exception because, AFAIK, the author played a major role in the making of the films.  That's rare, strange though it sounds.

If you want a topical example, read one of the Lord of the Rings   books (or one section of the book, depending on whether you see the original as one book or three) and then watch the film with the same title.  They are perhaps a 90% match with perhaps 50% of the book, with a few scenes thrown in that weren't in the book at all.  In each of the first two films, one of the characters is completely different to how they were in the book (Arwen, Gimli).  The LotR films are generally considered to be a close match to the book (or books, depending how you want to view the original), and they are compared to many conversions from book to film.

Yeah, about that being close thing. I just wanted to add that the Harry Potter movies are not all that close to the books. I'm an avid HP fan (as well as all of Kelley's books and LotR) and I noticed a ton of mistakes.

Also, Depp(sp?) and Jolie would have to go blonde for the movie if they wanted to stay true to the books, which movies rarely do. When I complained to my mother about this, she said that it's because when a company buys the film rights to a book, they basically get permission to do whatever they want even if it involves totally butchering the books.

I suppose that I'll go see it when the movie comes out but I'm prepared to be disappointed 'cuz the books always seem to be better.

~Sage
Logged

~*~Sage~*~
'If the facts don't fit your theory, change the facts.' Einstein
'When women are depressed, they eat or go shopping. Men start wars.'
Michael
Master
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2003, 07:34:56 PM »

omg depp would rule as Clay..the dude can play anyone..he has range

i mean to go from eddi scissorhands to willy wonka in a big stretch..and he can come out looking like anyone

look at him in the 9th gate and u wont even recognize him for awhile

he was my choice for batman until christian bale got the role
Logged

"IT'S HUMAN NATURE THAT FORCES A MAN TO KILL..BUT IT'S HUMAN REASON THAT WILL FORCE ONE NOT TO"
           -----Michael

"I CARE NOT FOR THE GODS OF MEN, BUT FOR MEN THAT ARE GODS"
     ------Michael
Crys
OWG Member
Deity
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5492



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2003, 09:41:21 PM »

Quote (Angilion @ Oct. 05 2003,14:49)
Quote
How close is the movie likely to be to the book?


On the basis of other book to film conversions, probably not all that close.  They rarely are.  The Harry Potter ones may be an exception because, AFAIK, the author played a major role in the making of the films.  That's rare, strange though it sounds.

If you want a topical example, read one of the Lord of the Rings   books (or one section of the book, depending on whether you see the original as one book or three) and then watch the film with the same title.  They are perhaps a 90% match with perhaps 50% of the book, with a few scenes thrown in that weren't in the book at all.  In each of the first two films, one of the characters is completely different to how they were in the book (Arwen, Gimli).  The LotR films are generally considered to be a close match to the book (or books, depending how you want to view the original), and they are compared to many conversions from book to film.

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies were in fact more interesting than the books. Sorry to all LOTR fans, but that's my personal opinion. In any case, the adaption was made to make the movie more movie-friendly, or Hollywood style for the more cynical people ':<img'>. So that when you watch the movie, the long soliloquies and interaction that can't be shown very well on stage were cut and more action (which translate well on stage) was added in. It's all for the good, IMO. If one wants the original, one should read the book. But if one wants a short and 'interesting' and definitely action packed concentrated version, why go through the confusing real version?  

Anyway, that's no point in completely converting a book into a film. There are just some things that suit the book but don't suit the film. If there's a blind and completely faithful translation, not only would the film be ultra-long, but it would be full of  ':confused' .

Just my 2 cents.

Crys
Logged

Angilion
Deity
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10943

Master of a hot bath and a nice cup of tea.


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2003, 01:36:23 AM »

I'm OK with people making films based on a cut-down version of a book, with some characters changed, some dialogue given to different characters and spurious additional scenes, as long as they don't pretend it is a book of the film.  In addition, I think it's a great shame that the book becomes buried by the film.  I already know of people who think that The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy of films by Peter Jackson and that's all that it is.

I'd love to see an accurate film version of the Lord of the Rings.  I realise that it would be 20 hours long, or more, and I also realise no-one will make it because they won't get the funding to do a proper job of it.  It wouldn't be very commercial.
Logged

Ian
OWG Member
Demi-god
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2890



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2003, 11:42:34 AM »

Quote
I'd love to see an accurate film version of the Lord of the Rings.  I realise that it would be 20 hours long, or more, and I also realise no-one will make it because they won't get the funding to do a proper job of it.  It wouldn't be very commercial.


When you're comparing film to literature and vice versa, you're comparing apples to oranges. That which makes a good film is a far cry from what makes a good book. A film is visual, a book imagined. A film has definite time constraints, a book may not have as many constraints and may end up at 250,000 words (Harry Potter's latest adventure) or more. These are just a few points that differentiate film from books. There are many more. And, they exist for good reason. Two seperate media.

A film is structured differently than a book. A film, any film, is written in three acts. Though on screen time may vary widely between films, they measure out usually to 25% each for acts I and III and 50% for act II. A major plot point occurs near the ends of acts I and II which propel the story to it's resolution in act III. Books are not as stringent in their structure. Thus, a filmmaker must often rework a book's contents to fit into this structure.

The first Potter film was terrible, because it stuck too closely to the book. There were lulls in the film that should have ended up on the cutting room floor. They learned much and it showed in the second film - a far better effort. As for LOTR, long and slow in places - I won't see them in the theatre, I just can't sit for that long.

When Bitten does hit theatres I'll treat it as I would any other film - I'll let it stand on it's own merits. Filmmakers are a crafty sort and I wouldn't put it past them to see this line in the opening credits:
BASED ON THE BOOK BY KELLEY ARMSTRONG.

Saying this gives them as much leeway as they want. They can add and subtract scenes and even characters. Hell, they can change the whole story if they like. Remember, it may only be based on the book.

Quote
I already know of people who think that The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy of films by Peter Jackson and that's all that it is.

Not everyone is a reader of older stories. Thankfully the story will live on in some way. Hopefully the reverse will happen and after seeing the film, people will read the books. It's all good. The same might even happen for Bitten.

Oh, and most quotes are taken out of context, modern ones anyway. Plus, I think the last quote is showing how different men and women really are. You know, Mars and Venus - worked for that guy.

Cheers,
Ian
 ':p'
Logged

Twitter: IanWrites

Statues are NOT toys!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.14 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!