[DaniCarr]

If anything make it with real people and in like 10 years when movie making is better.

[Sirkana]

and sirkana- you can be a real stick in the mud with sidetracks that would end very soon anyway, but also are related
Yes, I know :D :D (we know each other, take no notice)

I agree Dani.

[Irc]

I agree Dani.

**nods head vigourusly** :D :D :D :D :D

[DaniCarr]

Woe people agee with ME!:eek: that has to be a first. :rolleyes:

[Draoi]

Hi everyone... this is a repeat of a post I wrote sometime last year in response to a big debate about why there SHOULD or why there SHOULD NOT be a film - animated or otherwise. I thought that it might be interesting to review about now in this discussion.

From Page to Screen

It seems that many of the arguments against screenplays are based on personal gut reactions. I agree that it is often extremely disappointing to see an adaptation of a favourite book where the filmmaker’s representation is not as you imagined it. But are reasons such as “I have been disappointed with adaptations in the past”, and “they always cut out my favourite line” fair justifications for never again attempting a screenplay? Other justifications used in such debates often consist of lists of “All time worst adaptations”, of which there are many, just as there are many terrible books, terrible pieces of music, and many terrible original works too. Is it the fact that it is an adaptation that makes it shocking?

In immediate response to these criticisms I will content myself with a list of films adapted from books that are loved by the world. I strongly encourage everyone to see each and every one of the following award winning screenplays:


The Godfather
To Kill a Mockingbird
Gone With the Wind
A Clockwork Orange
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Stand By Me
The Wizard of Oz
Fight Club
Pride and Predjudice


And more recently:


Memoirs of a Geisha
About a Boy
Lord of the Rings


So far, I have merely outlined the common arguments for and against creating screenplays. However, my personal opinion is that this comparison, despite in some sense being inevitable, is very rarely formed into an objective, useful or justified argument, due to its basis on an individual emotional response. In other words, in a debate such as this, it often comes down to a personal gut reaction rather than a logical response. Thus, I thought it would be interesting to examine the subject from a more rational point of view.

All too often discussions about adaptations from literature to film have been based on categorical claims for the superiority of one of the two art forms. Such claims do not seem to be often made of other forms of adaptation: plays to ballet or opera, poetry to music, paintings inspired by books, or any of the plagiaristic works of the greatest of all adaptors – Shakespeare himself. For some reason, film and television are put in the position of having to defend themselves where these other adaptive art forms are not.

Is it fair to compare entirely separate mediums against the same criteria? Both film and literature are concerned with telling a narrative. But a film tells its story in its own language. Camera movement, Camera position, Mise-en-Scene, Lighting, Sound, and Editing are some of the main elements of the vocabulary that filmmakers use to express a narrative. Therefore, a film of a novel is not a simple mechanical copy of the source – it is a translation from one set of conventions, to an entirely different method of communicating meaning.

Perhaps the more interesting question we might ask, is why is it that Hollywood continues to create adaptations? And why is it that audiences continue to go and see them? Film has proved itself to be the ultimate hybrid - combining aspects of not only literature - fiction and drama - and painting and visual effect, but also mime, dance, music, photography itself. Film is capable of drawing upon all aspects of its artistic heritage to interpret experience and tell stories. If you go to a movie expecting an exact replica of the narrative in the book, but told visually, yes of course you will walk away disappointed. Film is not, and will never be, an exact translation of something you read. The entire language of film is different. Time is different, space is different, perspective is different. If you go to an adaptation, knowing and accepting that it will be an entirely different representation, and expecting to judge the film on it's own merits as a separate experience from the book, you will probably find that you enjoy it a whole lot more.

My personal view is that screenplays should be as true as possible to the original intent of the author. This does not insinuate a carbon copy screenplay, but rather one that adapts and brings to life those essential elements in the author's work. Thus, I believe the choice on whether to animate this film would rest on what the filmakers believed to be the "original intent" of the Author.

[Sirkana]

I think I agree with you, though maybe not completely...:confused:

[Irc]

I'm not sure...too complicated:confused: :confused: :confused:
mybe im dim...

[Sirkana]

same here...

[DaniCarr]

wow Draoi, you must of done a lot of recherch.

[Bree]

Wow
You did your homework...