|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Which Is Better? | |||
The Harry Potter Movies | 13 | 24.07% | |
The Lord of the Rings Movies | 41 | 75.93% | |
Voters: 54. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-11-2010, 07:28 PM | #31 (permalink) | |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by boo boo; 01-11-2010 at 07:34 PM. |
|
01-11-2010, 07:29 PM | #32 (permalink) |
we are stardust
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,894
|
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.
|
01-11-2010, 07:39 PM | #33 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
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. |
01-11-2010, 07:41 PM | #35 (permalink) |
we are stardust
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,894
|
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.
|
01-11-2010, 07:54 PM | #36 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
Not to mention over the years certain parts of a book may lose it's relevance and it could use an update.
|
01-11-2010, 07:58 PM | #37 (permalink) | |
Music Addict
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,845
|
Quote:
|
|
01-11-2010, 08:00 PM | #38 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
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? |
01-11-2010, 08:01 PM | #39 (permalink) |
we are stardust
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,894
|
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.
|
01-11-2010, 08:03 PM | #40 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
I enjoyed the first Narnia movie.
|
|