boo boo

But the whole point of reading books is using your imagination. The problem with adaptating books is that it doesn't matter how close it follows the book, it still might not play out the way you'd imagine it. So you'll find something to nitpick about no matter what.

So it's pointless, the book already exists, you can already imagine how it would play out in a movie. The reason filmmakers want to adapt books is because they want to do a different take on it, THEIR take on it, show people how THEY would imagine it, how events would play out in THEIR world, do it THEIR way. IMO doing a 100% literal adaptation of anything is pointless. It's like doing a cover song that sounds exactly the same as the original, why do it?

Sometimes giving a big middle finger to the book is the wisest thing a director can do, most of Kubrick's films being great examples. In fact many of the best film adaptations are as different from the book as possible.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Astronomer

Yeah but if you read my post up there ^ about how the LOTR films changed one aspect of the book, you will understand how sometimes it is necessary to change something... things do not always play out on screen they same ways as they do in words so changes have to be made in order to stay true to the book and keep the same significance/ meanings.

__________________

boo boo

Like I said, with two completely different mediums you need to make changes.

Just because it worked on paper doesn't mean it will work on film. You can't condense a novel that might take 10 hours to finish completely into a 2 hour movie without leaving sh*t out, you just can't.

And changing, removing or adding certain plot points, changing, removing and adding characters, these can all be necessary changes because again, things don't work out the same way in both mediums. Some things are only effective when written, and can't really be done visually. At the same time, film gives a story more potential than a book does, so it can be necessary to add things to complement the visual experience.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

TheCunningStunt

LOTR.. Surely?

Astronomer

Boo, exactly... which means that sometimes changing something actually means staying more loyal to the book, because you need to change it to fit the medium in order to convey the same kind of meaning/ significance/ emotion/ whatever.

__________________

boo boo

Not to mention over the years certain parts of a book may lose it's relevance and it could use an update.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

storymilo

But if you're saying that everyone imagines a different version, doesn't that mean that even if the director follows it closely, it will still be different than how you imagine it? Isn't that what you're looking for?

boo boo

Anyway. I think LOTR vs Narnia would have been a more interesting literary comparison if not a cinematic one. They have more in common at least.

Weren't Tolkien and C.S. Lewis like BFF or something?

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Astronomer

Yeah, they were, and I agree they would have been a much better and interesting comparison. Seeing as Tolkien and Lewis were best friends who studied together and obviously had much literary influence on each other.

__________________

boo boo

I enjoyed the first Narnia movie.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs