Earthsea
- टीवी मिनी सीरीज़
- 2004–2005
- 45 मि
IMDb रेटिंग
5.7/10
6.7 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA reckless young man is destined to become the greatest sorcerer the mystical land of Earthsea has ever known.A reckless young man is destined to become the greatest sorcerer the mystical land of Earthsea has ever known.A reckless young man is destined to become the greatest sorcerer the mystical land of Earthsea has ever known.
- 1 प्राइमटाइम एमी के लिए नामांकित
- 7 जीत और कुल 8 नामांकन
एपिसोड ब्राउज़ करें
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
Legends of Earthsea has a quality cast and acting -- though a cast that was largely south Asian or middle eastern might have been truer to the original story -- and also does nice things with settings, sets, and computer graphics, and could be an enjoyable TV movie in its own right, if the viewer were not aware of and comparing it to the original story.
The great shortcoming is the script and storyline, which has mangled the first two books of the Earthsea trilogy -- one of the greatest pieces of writing in the fantasy genre by one of the greatest fantasy and science fiction writers -- into a very mediocre, formulaic fantasy production with a story that bears only a passing resemblance to the original. The story suffers from a peripheral character, the Kargad king, being blown into a major character to provide a central villain, all but destroying the nuance and social complexity of antagonism in the original stories. The original stories have a strong theme of growth through the lifecourse of the central character, Ged. Collapsing the stories together and shortening the time frame has required a number of story changes which weaken this central theme. A number of changes have been made with respect to Atuan that play into a sappy, very unsatisfactory ending.
If you want cheap entertainment this is a good movie. If you want truly great stories, and fantasy reading that offers insight into your everyday life and commentary on the world, read the books instead: A Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, by Ursula LeGuin. The later Tehanu continues the story of Ged, but is, IMO, less deserving of praise.
The great shortcoming is the script and storyline, which has mangled the first two books of the Earthsea trilogy -- one of the greatest pieces of writing in the fantasy genre by one of the greatest fantasy and science fiction writers -- into a very mediocre, formulaic fantasy production with a story that bears only a passing resemblance to the original. The story suffers from a peripheral character, the Kargad king, being blown into a major character to provide a central villain, all but destroying the nuance and social complexity of antagonism in the original stories. The original stories have a strong theme of growth through the lifecourse of the central character, Ged. Collapsing the stories together and shortening the time frame has required a number of story changes which weaken this central theme. A number of changes have been made with respect to Atuan that play into a sappy, very unsatisfactory ending.
If you want cheap entertainment this is a good movie. If you want truly great stories, and fantasy reading that offers insight into your everyday life and commentary on the world, read the books instead: A Wizard of Earthsea, Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, by Ursula LeGuin. The later Tehanu continues the story of Ged, but is, IMO, less deserving of praise.
I have been a loyal fan of Ursula K LaGuinn's Earthsea series for years, and when Sci Fi announced they were making a miniseries, needless to say I was excited. And then the movie began... what a bitter disappointment! I had hoped, with the beautiful and excellent work done on Lord of the Rings, that movie makers and script writers were at last going to be true to an author's vision. What a terrible blow then, when Sci Fi aired Part I of Legend of Earthsea. I did not even bother to watch the second half, for I truly couldn't stomach anymore. I guess the writers and producers didn't even bother to read the books... in fact, I think they borrowed a name here, a place there, threw Ursula K LaGuinn's name on it so they couldn't be sued for plagiarism, and said here you go, an epic retelling of a masterpiece! Maybe they should have stuck with science fiction, 'cause they sure do suck at fantasy! If any of you watched this, "movie" and liked it, I urge you to read the true Earthsea Cycle and then decide. As for me, my faith in the skill and talent of the writers hired by Sci Fi has been badly shaken, and may never recover!
Let's get one thing straight right away, I haven't read the books! so those who have may not agree with me.
When I first picked this thing up I read the back cover and it talked about comparing it to the lord of the rings and harry potter, well they shouldn't have, when I first started watching this I kept looking for strange unfamiliar and mythical animals but none were apparent, it also starts out very slowly but then again it's almost 3 hours long so it can take it's time (which it does). After about 2 hours I realized that this is by no means in the same league as harry potter or the lord of the rings because it has no budget, at least nothing up to the likes of a Hollywood movie. But unlike other movies I've seen, that squander their budget on low quality CGI that makes the whole thing unwatchable and laughable, this movie instead focused it's budget on creating sets and costumes that are nicely done and detailed, and in those few scenes where they actually do have CGI, it's at least passingly decent.
The story isn't too compelling but enough so to maybe keep your attention for all 3 hours of it, but many ends are left open that leave you pondering later... uh why was that again?. I want to stress again, I haven't read the book, I hear this movie butchers them, but as a film unto it's own it still delivers an OK story.
Acting is around par for most involved, expect as much as you normally would from a made-for-TV movie.
All in all a decent movie to kill a lot of extra time with, even though there are a lot of other better alternatives out there.
When I first picked this thing up I read the back cover and it talked about comparing it to the lord of the rings and harry potter, well they shouldn't have, when I first started watching this I kept looking for strange unfamiliar and mythical animals but none were apparent, it also starts out very slowly but then again it's almost 3 hours long so it can take it's time (which it does). After about 2 hours I realized that this is by no means in the same league as harry potter or the lord of the rings because it has no budget, at least nothing up to the likes of a Hollywood movie. But unlike other movies I've seen, that squander their budget on low quality CGI that makes the whole thing unwatchable and laughable, this movie instead focused it's budget on creating sets and costumes that are nicely done and detailed, and in those few scenes where they actually do have CGI, it's at least passingly decent.
The story isn't too compelling but enough so to maybe keep your attention for all 3 hours of it, but many ends are left open that leave you pondering later... uh why was that again?. I want to stress again, I haven't read the book, I hear this movie butchers them, but as a film unto it's own it still delivers an OK story.
Acting is around par for most involved, expect as much as you normally would from a made-for-TV movie.
All in all a decent movie to kill a lot of extra time with, even though there are a lot of other better alternatives out there.
Overlong and ultimately unsatisfying mythical nonsense. The cast are strictly average and Kreuk is as typically bland as ever (check out TV series Edgemont for her best role). Canadian actress Jennifer Calvert is amazing as always and here gets a meaty leading role as an aide to the main villain. Katharine Isabelle features only briefly as the wizard friend's beautiful sister (and then spends her role looking a bit shifty as if she might fancy the main wizard, though this is never played out). Nothing else makes any impression. The music, set, costumes are all there but make little impact. Watch this to discover a true (and undervalued) actress (Jennifer Calvert) but not for a good time.
I had read Ursula K. LeGuin's response to some statements made by the director and I expected it to be bad. What I saw was horrendous. This is, to my mind, one of the best fantasy series ever written. This adaptation of it only resembles it in the location it was set and the names of the characters.
I have seen a couple of posts to which I must respond:
1) Comparing this to other works such as Dune and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant miss the mark. While both of those series were great, A Wizard of Earthsea precedes them. Moreover, the best of the series was the last two books, unlike most other most similar series (was it Frank Herbert that said "every good trilogy is five books, at least"?
2) Changing the race of the characters misses an integral part of the statement made by the author. I know she hates it when people read meanings into her works, but given that the book was written in the middle of racial unrest in the '60s a statement was made, intended or otherwise. The "good guys" were the dark skinned peoples and the "bad guys" were the tall, blond white peoples (yes, I know it's no where near that simple, but the basic idea stands).
I have seen a couple of posts to which I must respond:
1) Comparing this to other works such as Dune and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant miss the mark. While both of those series were great, A Wizard of Earthsea precedes them. Moreover, the best of the series was the last two books, unlike most other most similar series (was it Frank Herbert that said "every good trilogy is five books, at least"?
2) Changing the race of the characters misses an integral part of the statement made by the author. I know she hates it when people read meanings into her works, but given that the book was written in the middle of racial unrest in the '60s a statement was made, intended or otherwise. The "good guys" were the dark skinned peoples and the "bad guys" were the tall, blond white peoples (yes, I know it's no where near that simple, but the basic idea stands).
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाUrsula K. Le Guin, author of the novels on which the production is based, was critical of the adaptation. Among her complaints was the "whitewashing" of her characters' races (in the novels, few of Le Guin's characters are white). Le Guin also resented a statement published by director Robert Lieberman intoning that she approved of his take on her story.
- गूफ़Shortly after Ged and Oigon turn their backs to the goat, the crystal from Oigon's staff falls to the ground. After the cut, the crystal is back.
- भाव
The Dragon: Ask me two questions, wizard, and I will give you the answers.
Ged: Isn't it usually three?
The Dragon: Yes, but with that you're back to two.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Troldspejlet: एपिसोड #33.9 (2005)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How many seasons does Earthsea have?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Legend of Earthsea
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि
- 45 मि
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें