Books and Movies
Jan. 6th, 2004 05:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
butterflyProbably no one here actually needs to read this, but hey, I'm compiling that 'pet peeves' list.
Whenever I think of a book turning into a movie, The Princess Bride comes to mind. Now, the movie and the book are both excellent, but they're also quite different in parts.
The big thing? The book and the screenplay were written by the same person (S. Morgenstern being a work of fiction). The writer who knew the story most intimately and knew what needed to be kept and what didn't. Looking at the difference in treatment when the writer is the same should let anyone know how much more things will change when the screenwriter/director is different than the author.
Different eyes see different things.
The movie of The Lord of the Rings is, and can only ever be, an adaption of Tolkien's work. This is LotR as seen through Peter Jackman's (and the countless others who created the movie) eyes. It is not Tolkien's LotR. But no one is ever reading Tolkien's LotR - they're reading their LotR as seen through the eyes of Tolkien.
The only way to satisfy every purist (for they all get upset about different things) would be to film every shot exactly as Tolkien described it. Long speeches. Poems. Songs. Tom. And it would be a really long, really sucky movie. Movies aren't books. When you make an adaption and stay too close to the letter, you run the chance of missing the spirit (Harry Potter thus far comes to mind).
Shot-by-shot misses the point (which the color adaption of Psycho showed). Every medium works differently. And treatments vary depending on the culture of the time and place.
Changes will be, have to be, made. And the mere fact of a change is not an evil. Are some things in PJ's LotR not done as well as they are in Tolkien's? Probably. But some things in the movie version are better - Boromir comes to mind. And things have to be condensed - for example, it's silly to spend a long time on a bit character when you can be using that moment to introduce a major one. You don't have internal monologues, so some characters seem more emotional than they do in the books - their feelings need to show on their face, whereas in the book, they would just be implied.
It's different because books and movies are different. They're both art, both creation, but they're different forms. You don't draw anime the same way you sketch a landscape.
Whenever I think of a book turning into a movie, The Princess Bride comes to mind. Now, the movie and the book are both excellent, but they're also quite different in parts.
The big thing? The book and the screenplay were written by the same person (S. Morgenstern being a work of fiction). The writer who knew the story most intimately and knew what needed to be kept and what didn't. Looking at the difference in treatment when the writer is the same should let anyone know how much more things will change when the screenwriter/director is different than the author.
Different eyes see different things.
The movie of The Lord of the Rings is, and can only ever be, an adaption of Tolkien's work. This is LotR as seen through Peter Jackman's (and the countless others who created the movie) eyes. It is not Tolkien's LotR. But no one is ever reading Tolkien's LotR - they're reading their LotR as seen through the eyes of Tolkien.
The only way to satisfy every purist (for they all get upset about different things) would be to film every shot exactly as Tolkien described it. Long speeches. Poems. Songs. Tom. And it would be a really long, really sucky movie. Movies aren't books. When you make an adaption and stay too close to the letter, you run the chance of missing the spirit (Harry Potter thus far comes to mind).
Shot-by-shot misses the point (which the color adaption of Psycho showed). Every medium works differently. And treatments vary depending on the culture of the time and place.
Changes will be, have to be, made. And the mere fact of a change is not an evil. Are some things in PJ's LotR not done as well as they are in Tolkien's? Probably. But some things in the movie version are better - Boromir comes to mind. And things have to be condensed - for example, it's silly to spend a long time on a bit character when you can be using that moment to introduce a major one. You don't have internal monologues, so some characters seem more emotional than they do in the books - their feelings need to show on their face, whereas in the book, they would just be implied.
It's different because books and movies are different. They're both art, both creation, but they're different forms. You don't draw anime the same way you sketch a landscape.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 07:36 pm (UTC)And now I feel horrible for telling you that. I was mad at the person who accidentally let it slip to me - because I'd had this great vision of S. Morgenstern and that world and... it's just a great work of fiction.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 08:10 pm (UTC)Although, I now feel very dumb for bringing it up. Like one of those who got offended at the 'Legolas Dies!' icons for deeper reasons.
And what do you mean, no Santa Clause? (Pfft. I'm not *that* gullible, you should know. I met him once as a kid - there's photographs for evidence and everything...)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 08:16 pm (UTC)But yeah, it makes the story even more interesting, because he's critizing and praising and talking about his own work - he can take on the editing and publishing industry, and he can write a story that defies genre. It's a lesson in looking past authorial intent. Which is probably why I'm so blithe about doing that with Tolkien. The author's point of view is just that - a point of view.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 10:05 pm (UTC)moi
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-06 10:14 pm (UTC)