Earthsea (2004)

I was compelled to add this after reading several reviews: I think the scriptwriter knows about Ged's name inversion. He or the producers just thought that Sparrowhawk was not catchy enough or was too long. So they decided to reverse the order. Considering the writer had the gall to say that his adaptation reflected LeGuin's TRUE intentions (prompting her to write her reply - by the way, isn't the book's copyright hers? And so, shouldn't she have been able to veto anything based on it? I don't know how international copyright laws work on this. Now, on to my review. Well, I think that an adaptation of a book to film medium should follow the book. Actually, I'd like it to slavishly follow the book insofar as the medium allows. But I don't judge the adaptation for not doing that. I like the Lord of the Rings movies and they deviate from the books in several essential points, not the least of which is ignoring the fact that Tolkien creates his characters to be Aristotelian examples of superior men, even though LOTR is not a tragedy, but a comedy (technically speaking). In terms of adaptation of the books, this miniseries is awful, totally disgusting. The Godking of Awabath is changed into a warlord that wants to conquer the Archipelago, Kossil is his mistress, quite the young and attractive woman, who wants to gain the power to summon the nameless ones (who are a sort of black gremlins with bat wings ??), Tenar is chosen by the last high priestess of the tombs to take her place as keeper of the key to hold the nameless ones prisoners. By the way, it's one of them that is after Ged. The Iskyorh gebbeth becomes the archfiend of the whole trilogy and has a showdown with Ged at the Tombs of Atuan, where Ged incomprehensibly decides to release the nameless batgremlins and their evil upon the world. Nemerle does not die, but remain the leader of the resistance against the Kargs, who have conquered Roke with the help of Jasper ??? Also, poor Nemerle looks suspiciously like a Dumbledore... Should I go on? However, that's not the reason I'm rating it so low. What I really hated was the fact that not only were the actors terrible, even poor Isabella Rossellini and Danny Glover, because their roles were so bad, but the series is only a long series of clichés strung together. The whole Karg invasion plot is there so the film doesn't have to deal with the true issues of the first book, which is Ged's search for his own identity. The central issues of the other two books, namely, how once can gain freedom through trust and by looking beyond the bars of one's cage and acceptance of mortality as essential to life, are thoroughly ignored. The Archmage and the other wizards of Roke are reduced to a position of almost comic relief to the series (even worse, poor Vetch IS in fact treated as a comic relief character). So, we are down to a soppy, ridiculous adventure crafted for the so-called young adult public. By the way, I'm 50, but if I were a young adult I would feel very insulted by how imbecilic current day scriptwriters (especially Hollywood) think young adults are.

Is it a rule that TV adaptations of classic fantasy/sci-fi novels have to be boring or reworked as to be virtually unrecognizable? Both are true in the case of this Canadian-lensed version of an Ursula K. LeGuin novel. The acting is wooden, the plot reworked beyond repair, and the whole thing simply lifeless. It involves a young wizard in training (Shawn Ashmore with a 1950s perm) who is destined to be the greatest wizard of all. Danny Glover has a small role as the kid's first mentor. The head of the wizard school looks way too much like Dumbledore, which is to say they both resemble Merlin, which I suppose cannot be helped when dealing with magicians and wizards. I seem to recall a British or PBS adaptation of another LeGuin novel, LATHE OF HEAVEN, many years ago. There actually were two TV adaptations of that groundbreaking novel, I think. Maybe you should check one of those out instead of wasting your time with this. Better yet, read some LeGuin. She was a writer of modernist sci-fi and fantasy, and sad to say is largely forgotten today. Ditto Philip Farmer, whose RIVERWORLD saga was made an equal mess of on TV.

I would like to hold out as a little ray of light amongst the sea of overwhelming negative reviews of the 2004 "Earthsea" miniseries. Yes, I have read LeGuin's "Earthsea" trilogy, and will gladly concede that there are some points of divergence between the books and this television adaptation. As with many things in life, however, all things are relative: this miniseries could have been much worse! The acting is passable, and I found it entertaining to watch, once I accepted that it wasn't going to be minutely faithful to the books. In short: it's a lot better than nothing for now. Watch it and enjoy it for what it is.If you want to see adaptations which have REALLY massacred the original literary plot, try watching (as much as you can stomach) the 2002 version of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine". (The 1960 version comes highly recommended, however!) And for the worst ever sacrilege done to a sci-fi literary classic, check out 1998's "Nightfall". It's unfortunate that Isaac Asimov was still alive when that abomination came to light.

First I will admit, I did not watch the whole mini-series all the way through and jumped around bit after the first part because I was so disappointed. I will also add that I've read the books a few times, so my expectations were probably high, especially after Lord of the Rings.Before I give my comments on the mini-series, after reading the various comments from other viewers, I'm convinced the standards of viewers have dropped and the shallowness of the average viewer cannot be overestimated. There is no way this mini-series should rate above a 5 of 10.The acting was not bad, but I did get the sense that most of the cast was completely unfamiliar with the books and the stories. The whole series felt mundane and unoriginal. The fresh minimalism of the Earthsea series was lost in the typical fantasy treatment given to the stories. As a reader, I was also disappointed in the casting and the dramatic differences between the books and the mini-series.You could tell from the casting and the way situations were changed in the mini-series that the producers were trying for a younger audience used to Harry Potter and other highly derivative fantasy works (the J.K. Rowling fans will want to murder me, of course). The books could be considered slow by today's standards, but the had an undercurrent of sadness that made them more powerful. The aura of the books was completely lost in the mini-series. There was no sense of history like you feel when watching Lord of the Rings or some of the better fantasy movies (Dragonslayer, say).The 3 stars I give the mini-series comes from the generally good production values and the commitment to making a mini-series rather than trying to compress the whole series into 2 hours or so. I would have preferred that they had just made a 2 hour movie perhaps compressing the first two books, than the radical changes and alterations that were made for the mini-series. In short, it was a typical Hollywood-corrupted production that had so much promise only to be ruined. Overall though, the mini-series was a below average effort for such a promising story. The producers of the mini-series should have just said it was "inspired" by Earthsea and used a different name. A decent example of this type of thing is the recent Sci-Fi channel mini- series, "Tin Man". They didn't call it Oz anything and totally re-imagined Wizard of Oz. It wasn't great, but much better than Earthsea.One can only hope that the failure of the Earthsea mini-series won't close the door to future attempts to re-imagine the books on film. Lord of the Rings was famously messed up by a partial animated version, so there is always hope.