Adapting books to films
People like films, but would you say that the predominant, and perhaps only reason for adapting a book to a film would be to make money? Since you usually blur the original artistic vision of the novelist, since you have to condense all of his narrative into a small space, you usually end up contributing nothing to the overall artistic effect of a piece of work other than that more people have heard about it.
That seems to be the general concsensus in regard to adaptions of books. I do believe, however, that an intelligent (usually independent) filmmaker can condense a piece of literature into a brilliant abridged movie that still conveys some of the major themes and issue, sometimes in a more relevant fashion.
yesPeople like films, but would you say that the predominant, and perhaps only reason for adapting a book to a film would be to make money?
I wanna see a Star Wars book.
You can't make action movies a book.
Actually, if the Thrawn series by Timothy Zahn was made into a trilogy I would definitely go and see it, but Lucas would need to keep his neckless torso away from it.
You definately can. Also I read a star wars novel, it was about Rogue Squadron. I liked it.Originally Posted by Kirby
Just do it.
sometimes you can take an awesome book and make it an even more AWESOME movie such as lord of the rings
Absolute blasphemy, Buckweat.
They were completely different yes but the movies were and are FANTASTIC
depends on how action oriented the book is. harry potter movies worked fine.
Since they are two different medias they should really be treated as such but if it's a book someone really likes then their favorite part could be chopped out of the movie and then I could see them getting upset.
Just do it.
Ulysses the movie.
I would see it.
god you havent read the books. there were entire CHAPTERS, sometimes consecutive ones, dedicated to characters just talking in one room. they cut all the shit out and made it action oriented because its a movie and thats what they do.
Long lines of introspection and dialogue work better in book form, and descriptions of visuals and other sensations work better in film. Not to say either is exclusive to that, but the usual time a book and a movie are both great is when they have a good mix of both.
why you always gotta be like that justin, bringing a guy down
i read the first 4 books, eat my dick BRO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(film)
saw a great gatsby movie in high school and it was soooo bad. who would have ever thought to make a book like that into a movie.
I think the Twilight movies were probably of equal quality to the Twilight books.
JOIN AN RP YOU SLACKERS!
Actually the books were pretty enjoyable I couldn't put them down
Buckwheat go away with your level 100 Rayquazza.
sometimes, the language barrier gives me trouble, that's sarcasm...right?
Don't ask me, aparently Pittsburg is like the south.
the books werent that bad really. im not saying they were the greatest works of fiction ever but they werent TERRIBLE like most people make them out to be even though they havent read them.
They're not good. But then, I did read them all.
Originally made by LM:
~ I have said nothing because there is nothing I can say that would describe how I feel as perfectly as you deserve it. -- Kyle Schmidt ~
~Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute. -- Josh Billings ~
* dragon_berry**Fallen_Wings*
Reply With Quote
