Quote:
Originally posted by hello,danny
I think faithfulness is a good quality to have--but not when making a film based on literature or other art. I mean, what's the point? Being "faithful" doesn't mean something is good (in my opinion), and it doesn't mean it deserves more praise.
|
being faithful has merits ...
as everyone knows - the source material is almost always more detailed, full, and generally better than the subsequent film ..
not always - but usually.
when a very popular and loved novel is adapted the loudest cry you hear from fans is how much it deviated from the origional.
changes are usually a result of time, budget, or understanding of the source.
That being said i have no problem with a competant filmmaker putting his own spin on things (a la Kubrick's Shining)
i'm happy to see a big screen budget with great actors compared to a bunch of TV stars struggling along with tha material and significantly smaller budget.
here's a formula: ...
lower budget = lower pay
lower pay = lesser talent (all aspects of a production)
lesser talent = a less than stellar output.
again - there are always lucky exceptions ... but they are few and far between.
as far as the 'its better to see a nice guy go bad instead of an already typcast whacko like Jack' : well, the character in the book wasn't a stable guy himself... he wasn't such a nice guy.
he was nuts from the beginning.
this story is similar to Session 9 in that respect.
a malevolent force inhabiting a building taking advantage of someone in the brink of self estruction .. a fragile personality.
or ... is it just madness ?