Text 28279, 81 rader
Skriven 2007-04-23 06:29:47 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 28278 av Mimi Gallandt (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Marines
===============
Mimi Gallandt -> John Hull wrote:
 MG> John Hull -> Mimi Gallandt wrote:
 JH>> Mimi Gallandt -> VERN HUMPHREY wrote:
 MG>>> VERN HUMPHREY -> MIMI GALLANDT wrote:
 MG>>>>>>> True.  Have you read Exodus?  Great book.

 VH>>>>>> Yes - deeply moving.

 MG>>>>> and so much better than the movie. Usually books are better than
 MG> the
 VH>>>> movies
 MG>>>>> that get made from them, that's why I always recommend waiting to
 VH>>>> read the b
 MG>>>>> until after you've seen the movie. :)

 VH>>>> Hmmm . . . I've found it just the opposite.  Movies are condensed,
 MG>>> have
 VH>>>> extraneous material added, and so on.  Sometimes you completely
 MG>>> lose the
 VH>>>> story if you haven't read the book.

 MG>>> I'd never move to take your opinion from you, I just disagree. :) An
 MG>>> example, even at 5 hours Gone with the Wind (staring Vivian Leigh and
 MG>>> Clark Gable) leaves out huge parts of the book. Did you know that
 MG>>> Scarlett had a child before she married Rhett? She had a son with the
 MG>>> man she married on the rebound from Ashley. The book is so much
 MG>>> different from the movie, don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful movie,
 MG>>> it's just a better book. :)

 MG>>> Wouldn't this world be a boring place if no one ever held a different
 MG>>> opinion?  :)


 JH>> There are definately some really horrendous renditions of good
 MG> books in
 JH>> the movie business, but you have to realize that its almost impossible
 JH>> to create a movie that tracks verbatim with the book.

 JH>> Parts of a book simply don't lend themselves to translation to motion
 JH>> pictures.  For instance, long passages of some character thinking to
 JH>> himself, or describing the way a scene looks.  How do you translate
 JH>> something like that to film and make it understandable?  Then you have
 JH>> the problem of how to tell a story in a limited amount of time
 JH>> (typically 100 minutes give or take) and make it interesting.  How do
 JH>> you do that and stay within budget?  Making a movie is a series of
 JH>> compromises, and that may require significant departures from the way
 JH>> the story is told in the book.

 JH>> Some really great books will never be put on film because they
 MG> can't be
 JH>> translated to film without completely destroying the story.  One
 MG> such is
 JH>>  Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising."  It is one of the best of the Clancy
 JH>> Jack Ryan stories, and deals with Russia attacking Europe through the
 JH>> Fulda Gap in eastern Germany.  Huge, intricate plot, covering the
 MG> whole
 JH>> world with dozens of characters, strategic and tactical background
 JH>> information, etc.  The first problem is that there simply aren't
 MG> enough
 JH>> tanks and planes and other military equipment still in existence to
 MG> lend
 JH>> authenticity to it, and even if there were, you couldn't film it on
 JH>> location.  It would cost far too much to make, even today with
 MG> computer
 JH>> animation.  Imagine trying to make "The Longest Day" today.  It would
 JH>> never happen.

 MG> I suppose that the reason I rarely see movies and read a lot of books is
 MG> because of just that (parts of books not being able to be transfered to
 MG> film).


I wouldn't let that stop me.  Two different mediums, each of which has its
merits, as well as demerits.  Sometimes, the two just come together and you get
a wonderful synergy.  Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy is a good
example of that.  Granted, it wasn't verbatim Tolkien and can never replace the
books, but it came closer than anyone had a right to hope, and gave millions of
Tolkien fans something to cheer about.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)