|
LOL--this is hysterical! WHAT A DEBATE!
Okay, I've said it before, I'll say it again:
It is POINTLESS to compare books and film. Doing so makes just about as much sense as if one were comparing brocoli and a shoe. I mean, come on! They're two COMPLETELY different mediums!
Now, I think there is some validity to this whole STORY argument, but then again not really: A movie has to act on very certain and distinct terms--and if that means altering the story to fit those certain and distinct terms, it really has no other choice.
And even when story changes (even major ones) seem not motivated by these "certain and distinct terms," it's downright silly to get upset if something major is changed, say, because the director/screenwriter is like, "You know, I want to make this huge change because it pleases me." I mean, how BORING is it to just have a novel caught on film. I like it when movies change, manipulate, distort, add, and probe into things that its book counterpart doesn't. NOTHING is so sacred that we can't try to look at it in a different way, a new way, in a way that is fresh and (even) scary to us. It's called opening our minds, and we could all do well to do so.
|