Feist or Eddings

[JackNichols87]

Hey Guys,

Just wanted your opinion on something;

If you had to choose, which of the following two books would you most like to see made into a movie?

Jack

 

[dwndrgn]

I haven't read the Eddings work you used but I like Feist's writing better anyway so I chose him.

To be honest, unless it gets treated with a great deal of respect, I'd prefer they didn't make movies out of books. They tend to twist them, put in irrelevancies, take out important bits and ignore the authors who created what they are working from.

 

[JackNichols87]

Even if it was made by a dedicated fan?Jack

 

[hodor]

I am sorry but I have read them both; no question at all when I saw this... Feist all the way.

 

[Lacedaemonian]

Magician could stand alone whereas The Pawn of Prophesy could not.

 

[Neon]

I liked both books, but do like Eddings a little better. Although I would agree with you Lace, Magician could standalone.

 

[Mark Robson]

Magician is the better book, but I think that The Belgariad would make better films. The characters are more extreme. Whoever did the casting for it would have a ball!

 

[GrownUp]

Hello. This is my first day at the Sci-Fi forum. So likely to be being very naive or just thick.
Is "Magician:Apprentice" different to "Magician"? Are they the original and revised additions, maybe?

 

[erickad71]

Magician:Apprentice is the first book in the series.

Here is a list of the books in that particular series:

1. Magician: Apprentice (1982)

2. Magician: Master (1982)

3. Silverthorn (1985)

4. A Darkness at Sethanon (1985)

5. Prince of the Blood (1989)

6. The King's Buccaneer (1989)

 

[GrownUp]

Thank you Ericka. In that case I reckon Magician would be much the better film. So much of the text is description it would make a rich screenplay. But there wouldn't be time to follow everyone. It would have to be mainly Pug's story.

 

[Princess Ivy]

I love both books, so I hope niether! I hate seeing faves riped to pieces by hollywood!

 

[Drachir]

Unless a Peter Jackson came along to film them I doubt that either would translate well to film. However, if one or the other was to be selected I would prefer Eddings. I like the fact that there are no elves or dwarves in his books. He invents his own monsters rather than using ideas that have been done to death. I also like the humour in his writing. Some of the exchanges between his characters were very funny. I didn't find that in the Feist novels.

 

[The Master™]

Never read anything by Eddings, that I am aware of... Feist, I've read them all... And MAGICIAN is a great adventure book... Stands very well on it's own or part of the Riftwar Saga!!!

 

[hodor]

Never read anything by Eddings, that I am aware of... Feist, I've read them all... And MAGICIAN is a great adventure book... Stands very well on it's own or part of the Riftwar Saga!!!

Oh master, you're just a Feist goon...hehehe

 

[The Master™]

Don't you think everyone knows that???

I'm the BIGGEST FEIST GOON!!!!

 

[hodor]

HAHAHA... he is good. I have read nearly all of his stuff, all of Hobb's stuff, all of Martin's ASoIaF, and have just started attacking the Erikson stuff. It is so hard to compare one of these authors with another as they have such different styles. However, Feist was the first of all these for me and I will always remember sitting up late at night reading the Riftwar series.

 

[The Master™]

Aw bless... You can re-read the Riftwar Saga to put your youngster to sleep, when she arrives... Start 'em early, that's what I say!!!

 

[Beldins armpit]

You cannot compare the two. Eddings' books are made as a part of a series, though very good, a lot of the concepts are too abstract to translate into film. The internal dialogue that will also be missing will eventually devalue the whole story as it is this that gives insight and depth into the main characters, although the inter-character banter can be very funny. I think it would be like putting pratcett into film.
Feists' series would work as each book is a story of itself- except for the Krondor series, and the relatively new Conclave series.
I wouldn't like to see either of the authors' work translated into film,though, as they both would be raped by hollywood... best to do it biritish!

 

[NSMike]

Well, they're both very different animals. I love both Eddings and Feist, but I have to say that Magician would make a better film, simply because Feist's characters, while being great in and of themselves, are different than Eddings' characters. Eddings takes great time to develop his characters carefully, whereas Feist tends to make bigger strides in time passed, allowing a broader picture of his characters much faster. It doesn't make his characters any less valuable, just easier to translate into film characters. The audience could get to know Pug in a 2 hour film much easier than they could Garion, and the writers for the film would have a much easier job too. Magician is already fast-paced enough to put into film too. If they can film LOTR, they can do Magician. I don't think I'd want PJ to do it, though. Give it to someone else. The only other director I know of to do fantasy is Ron Howard, but I don't think I'd want him to do it either. Maybe Rob Reiner.

A note on the books:

Magician was originally released as a single volume. In recent years, Feist sought to re-release the novel in two parts, calling them the "Author's preferred edition" (basically he'd made enough money to override his editor). Now, just within the past year or two, he re-combined them into one volume as the author's preferred editon of "Magician" made whole.

 

[BAYLOR]

Raymond Feist easily.