Another first-rate essay, MFW. I will say that I'm very much against watching even streaming shows with distractions. Lights out. No phones. No side conversations, except to comment on scenes and camera shots. Hit pause to let the dogs in and out.
You can tell what's good from what's not so good if you pay attention. As you point out, things are less good now.
"It’s impossible to include every crucial story point from a 100,000 word novel in a traditional two-hour, three-act film structure and figuring out what you must include and what you can let go is not as easy as it sounds."
That's why every time I watch LA Confidential I am completely amazed that they turned out such an amazing film. The novel sprawls across decades, not a single character comes to the same end, and the brilliant Rollo Tomassi device is purely from the screenwriters, not the novel. I can't think of a single adaptation that has changed so much from the source while still leaving its tone and essence intact, and wound up as such a great film.
Your Excellency, I truly enjoy how you bring these movies alive again. I'm from an older generation when we would ask, "Wanna go see the John Wayne movie?" Movie stars used to be fun. I did watch "Taps" again when it came on the other day because Your Excellency posted about it.
There's always going to be that book vs movie argument. But to the extent that I "go to the movies" any longer, I have never gone to see a "faithful adaption" of the book. I love my favorite books for the "feel" as much as the story. Same with movies. If the movie captures the "feel" of the book, I'm satisfied.
So, I love "The Princess Bride" movie as much as I love the book, although the movie is not an exact re-creation of the book. I didn't like "Starship Troopers" as a movie because it totally failed to capture the feel of the book, which as not about fighting "the Bug War."
Pretty much hated "A Wrinkle in Time" movie becuse it pretty much eviscerated the feel of the book.
I felt "Lord of the Rings" managed to capture the spirit of the book (It was originally one book but was split into 3 by the publisher) quite well, even as it left out parts of the book I loved.
Too many who 'adapt' a book to a movie script (and I understand that the director can 'adjust' that as well) don't seem to care about the 'feel' that makes a book interesting above and beyond plot and characters.
Yeah you've hit on another reason why adaptations are tough. I think most people realize you can almost never do a truly faithful adaptation and most are OK with it, under the theory that a movie should be a different way into the story anyway, otherwise why bother, you can just read the book again. But the problem is that everyone has a different idea of what that should be and it's very tough to make everyone happy. As an example, I happen to think "Clear and Present Danger" is a brilliant adaptation, but when I said so on X not long ago, I got ratioed to the moon.
Another first-rate essay, MFW. I will say that I'm very much against watching even streaming shows with distractions. Lights out. No phones. No side conversations, except to comment on scenes and camera shots. Hit pause to let the dogs in and out.
You can tell what's good from what's not so good if you pay attention. As you point out, things are less good now.
Thank you!! And yes, that’s the only way to do it.
"It’s impossible to include every crucial story point from a 100,000 word novel in a traditional two-hour, three-act film structure and figuring out what you must include and what you can let go is not as easy as it sounds."
That's why every time I watch LA Confidential I am completely amazed that they turned out such an amazing film. The novel sprawls across decades, not a single character comes to the same end, and the brilliant Rollo Tomassi device is purely from the screenwriters, not the novel. I can't think of a single adaptation that has changed so much from the source while still leaving its tone and essence intact, and wound up as such a great film.
Such a great movie
Your Excellency, I truly enjoy how you bring these movies alive again. I'm from an older generation when we would ask, "Wanna go see the John Wayne movie?" Movie stars used to be fun. I did watch "Taps" again when it came on the other day because Your Excellency posted about it.
There's always going to be that book vs movie argument. But to the extent that I "go to the movies" any longer, I have never gone to see a "faithful adaption" of the book. I love my favorite books for the "feel" as much as the story. Same with movies. If the movie captures the "feel" of the book, I'm satisfied.
So, I love "The Princess Bride" movie as much as I love the book, although the movie is not an exact re-creation of the book. I didn't like "Starship Troopers" as a movie because it totally failed to capture the feel of the book, which as not about fighting "the Bug War."
Pretty much hated "A Wrinkle in Time" movie becuse it pretty much eviscerated the feel of the book.
I felt "Lord of the Rings" managed to capture the spirit of the book (It was originally one book but was split into 3 by the publisher) quite well, even as it left out parts of the book I loved.
Too many who 'adapt' a book to a movie script (and I understand that the director can 'adjust' that as well) don't seem to care about the 'feel' that makes a book interesting above and beyond plot and characters.
Yeah you've hit on another reason why adaptations are tough. I think most people realize you can almost never do a truly faithful adaptation and most are OK with it, under the theory that a movie should be a different way into the story anyway, otherwise why bother, you can just read the book again. But the problem is that everyone has a different idea of what that should be and it's very tough to make everyone happy. As an example, I happen to think "Clear and Present Danger" is a brilliant adaptation, but when I said so on X not long ago, I got ratioed to the moon.