Mrs. Plant V3.0 couldn’t make it through the novel, but she enjoyed the movie.
What about the differences? The Dust Witch’s balloon isn’t in the film, nor is the bullet catching scene, although when I read the novel now, I see Jason Robards as Charle Halloway, and could swear I see him lean the rifle on Will’s shoulder. 
The Dust Witch is ugly and mummified in the novel, a beautiful young woman in the film. I think it would have been cool to see her transform from beautiful when she was seducing someone or trying to kill Halloway, and transform to her true form.
Bradbury did the screenplay, so I presume that he was on board with the changes.
What do you think?
Some stylistic differences for me. I read the book first. Otherwise, I like both.
I got to say, I think the film got Mr Dark pretty darn good. Actually a bit like what my inner mind’s film showed when reading the book. Surprised me because that rarely happens.
Yes, it did.
“My name is Mister Dark. I advise you to respect it.”
“Christmas doesn’t come for a thousand years.”
or something like that
Had to look it up on IMBd
Charles Halloway: [quoting Shakespeare] By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes.
Mr. Dark: Then rang the bells both loud and deep. God is not dead nor doth he sleep.
Charles Halloway: The wrong will fail, the right prevail, with peace on Earth, goodwill to men.
Mr. Dark: It’s a thousand years to Christmas, Mr. Holloway.
Charles Halloway: You’re wrong. It’s here, in this library tonight, and can’t be spoiled.
Mr. Dark: Did Will and Jim bring it with them on the soles of their shoes? Then, we shall have to scrape them.
Bradbury wrote the screenplay, had various good things to say about the final product, but also had some criticisms about original scenes removed and new ones added. My friends were working on the special effects, so they were happy about those additions, but there as a lot of discussion at the time about the faithfulness of the movie. I think most people realized that in comparison to the typical screen adaptation of any book, this one did pretty good.
It would be cool to see how today’s FX could render the carnival coming into town. Or Mr Dark’s tats.
I love the book, and I love the movie. Very rare that that happens. Yes I agree that the new CGI could make an interesting movie, but sometimes CGI is overused and some things should stay more mental than actually onscreen.
When they made the film, they actually produced computer-generated scenes of the circus coming to town and setting itself up. The CGI of the day being pretty awful (by today’s standards. Or even the standards of the day), these scenes looked jarringly unlike the rest of the film (stills of them were published in the magazine Cinefantastique at the time), so they were ditched.
I can’t honestly say that this really adds anything to the film. Even with modern CGI, there’s really no point, aside from showing off your flashy FX. The movie’s much better without it.
Well, if someone could do it low key. Remember, the carnival came in at night. I would be looking for the FX to be moody rather than flashy. I am not an FX for FX sakes person.
Really, lots of shows and movies could benefit from just a tweaking of modern effects in a subtle fashion. Just make it so it’s not obvious that this is a toy airplane or a guy in a mask or shooting thru a screen, etc…
I thought it was very well done in the film. The viewer slowly realizes there is no one on the train.
Yeah, that was pretty good.
I’ll have to rewatch it. I know there were some effects that didn’t look that great.
But don’t everyone think I just want flash and bash FX. (I never said that, some people just assume.) Want I want is simply a smooth viewing experience, one where I don’t say to myself “That isn’t even close to what I imagined.”
Of course, this being the all powerful SDMB, YMMV
The carnival setting itself up would have ruined the viewer’s slow realization that the carnival is magic and evil. It was particularly nice watching Mrs. Plant v. 3.0 watch it for the first time.
I’ll rent it and watch it again. If I recall then the scenes I’m vaguely remembering as needing something more, I’ll come back and post them.
In the meantime …
How did the already mature woman catch on to the desires and hopes of little boys turning into young men? Did she relate? I think that’s one of things Bradbury did so well. Since it wasn’t all about the boys, but Mr Dark used the dreams of all sorts of people to capture them, than anyone reading (watching) it would be able to relate in a very personal way.
I liked both movie and book, though it’s been a while since I enjoyed either. I seem to remember during the nighttime search for the boys, there seemed to be the sounds of a balloon, (creaking of ropes, etc.) and maybe even a shadow moving over the fields, but no actual balloon. I remember being impressed by the effect. Also, the scene with the spiders was very scary. Pam Grier as the dust-witch worked amazingly well, I thought.
Fear me one and all! I am the killer of threads!
Just one bump here, I want to mention how the scene where Mr. Dark offers to make Mr. Halloway younger is very different when watched at 54 than it was at 25.
Yeah, I started re-reading this book a few months ago, last having read it at 13, and had the same experience. It was one of Bradbury’s great talents that he could write child characters so well that child readers could empathize with them, and then as the readers get older their empathies shift to the adult characters, and their enjoyment of the story doesn’t suffer.
I’m almost afraid to read Dandelion Wine again. Although…I remember reading it as a child during the winter months and almost crying with longing over his descriptions of summer, so now would be a good time to do it…
He drew a ghost and signed my journal.
“I have never listened to anyone who criticized my taste in space travel, sideshows or gorillas. When this occurs, I pack up my dinosaurs and leave the room.”
― Ray Bradbury