Gunfreak  | 28 Jul 2018 2:06 p.m. PST |
Now those movies were shot as one film, yet I feel distinct difference in style for those movies.
The first one is very slapstick and has little gravity. While the sillyness and slapstick is still there in the second. It is a more serious tone to it, very few actually die in the first one, in the second far more "henchmen" meeting a final end. And of course three central characters die in it. The overall tone is darker too, the Athos-Milady story is far more serious and menaceing "have you ever seen a woman shot in the stomach" I'm I the only one who's noticed this? |
| Shagnasty | 28 Jul 2018 4:19 p.m. PST |
They were supposed to be one film that darkened in tone. Dividing it in two changed the flow, enriched the producers and infuriated the actors. They sued and won pay for two films. |
| dragon6 | 28 Jul 2018 6:03 p.m. PST |
No you are not. I mean the tone difference is obvious. I do love both films but I hafta say I like the first best. |
| Dennis | 28 Jul 2018 6:06 p.m. PST |
IMHO the two Stories in the book (the Queen's Diamonds and Milady's Revenge) follow the same general lines as the two Salkind/Lester/Fraser movies. Essentially, it chronicles d'Artagnan's maturing from a cocksure youth meeting his heros to the most complete of the four and their leader. So, yes, I've noticed the change in tone and thought it a more or less accurate retelling of Dumas' story-the sight gags and the like were a natural result of hiring Richard Lester and George McDonald Fraser for the project. |
| Ed Mohrmann | 28 Jul 2018 6:47 p.m. PST |
Yes, noticed the change (in mood, if you'll accept that)
but that's never diminished my enjoyment of the films. |
| rmaker | 28 Jul 2018 7:50 p.m. PST |
Dennis is right. That is what Dumas intended. |
| 23rdFusilier | 28 Jul 2018 11:23 p.m. PST |
|
| Gunfreak | 29 Jul 2018 1:32 a.m. PST |
No you are not. I mean the tone difference is obvious. I do love both films but I hafta say I like the first best. I actually prefer the second one, I found the first one too lighthearted and so hard to take any part of the story seriously. The second one I felt hit just the right spot for drama and humour. it was humorous(some of the humor comes just from the total disregard for their own safety, ) But you still felt the danger and drama. (the second one also has better sword fights) |
| parrskool | 29 Jul 2018 5:51 a.m. PST |
….. then the novels go on to The Man in the Iron Mask….. and Twenty Years On. There is also a 4th book by Dumas Louise De Vallois as I recall. |
| jowady | 29 Jul 2018 9:52 a.m. PST |
Indeed, the Salkind movies follow the development of the characters from the books fairly closely. |
| Katzbalger | 29 Jul 2018 12:24 p.m. PST |
Loved both movies and thought they were the best adaptation of Dumas' books (though, to be completely accurate, I like the first movie the best), much better than the earlier and later attempts. Rob |
| Gunfreak | 29 Jul 2018 12:45 p.m. PST |
Oh there is no contest, 3/4 Musketeers are by far the best adaptation to any screen(big or small)
They capture the ethos and light-heartedness of the Musketeers(I've always thought of the Musketeers as the guidebook for how Napoleonic hussars should behave,
recklessly, FFD(fight,  , and drink) And those movies capture that. And the costumes are quite nice too, (far better then later leather fetish incarnations) |
| Dynaman8789 | 30 Jul 2018 11:16 a.m. PST |
I love those movies, the later movie version in the nineties was not as good and that thing from a decade or so ago is best left forgotten entirely. |
| Dynaman8789 | 31 Jul 2018 6:13 a.m. PST |
And thanks to this thread I downloaded the book on my kindle, I plan to read it after the Kursk history I'm reading at the moment. |
looks at a fast-assembly naval kit for the Age of Sail.