Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2

    "someone else's interpretation" with book adaptations, no, no, no.

    OK, the title doesn't describe this topic very well but here is the longer version:

    everybody always says that the book is always better than the movie because it's somebody else's interpretation of it, so it conflicts with your own. I say that's bullshit, if that were the case you wouldn't think the book is better if you watched the movie first, would you. because if you watched the movie first, that would be your interpretation. I at least have often watched a movie and thought; that was a very good movie, and then when I've read the book thought; wow the book was amazing , it was even better than the movie.

    so no, that is not why the book is always better than the movie. I think it is because books are better at telling a deep story and presenting rich characters than movies, so if a book is made into a movie something of the story is lost. movies on the other hand are better at action and description of visual things like how a character looks. that should mean that if an action movie would be made into a book, the movie would probably be better. a kind of example of this is James Bond, I have not read the bond books but not many have and that's why I took this as an example, the movies are massively more popular than the books, most people don't think about them being books originally when they watch bond. this is because their action movies or maybe action books.

  2. #2
    Lurnin' da Force Bodhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    152

    Arrow no, no, no, no

    Well books are like apples and movies are like oranges: both fruit, but one clearly superior. NOT!

    I think the problem occurs when a movie tries to stay completely true to an author's words. A movie tells a story in a different way with added stimuli, so it should be an adaptation to a different medium.

    The transition to a visual image from language is enormous, so it makes sense that you can't please everyone.

    Your claim of depth and richness is not unsubstantiated. Novels are older as an art form.

    I think movie-producers are starting to learn where movies fare the best. But that doesn't stop them from milking old favorites or the latest fads. There's more moolah in the movie biz, so it gets more diluted or perverted as an art form.
    What's for dinner, Yod?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •