Captain Splendid's Journal: Immovable objects

And again.

Listen, your treasured favourite stories will always suffer to one degree or another in adaptation, that's a given. And yes, some are more inexcusable than others. But to get all absolutist is silly.

Both Lynch's Dune and Jackson's LOTR are not fucking "travesties". They were, in fact, both pretty fucking awesome, and a lot of the choices they made that pissed you off were not done as a solitary attack on your happy memories, but rational, considered changes that were intended so as to not make mistakes that could be avoided.

Get off your high horses and the get the fuck out of your basements.

Guess I am lucky

[zogger]

I don't seem to have a single strand of pedantic DNA. I don't care if I am reading someone's stuff and they confuse they're, their, there or what I think it should be, thare, by context. So movies don't bug me. I always watch movies as completely independent from the books, so I can't get disappointed if they don't follow the original (ex: the thin red line. The book was great, the movie left out a lot of the action and more "earthy" raw and real stuff), but I still liked both.. And I haven't even seen lotr

You just have to remember

[smittyoneeach]

Each story in a different medium is a distinct work.
Asimov the book != to Asimov the flick.
These whiners need to try their hand at writing/directing/producing their own screenplay adaption to grasp that the medium interacts with the story in fundamental ways.
This childish insistence that "stuff has to cater to my imagination" diminishes the enjoyment of having what the writer wrote as a distinct thing from what the actors emit.
Double your pleasure, say I.

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

Double your pleasure, say I.

+5 Insightful

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

A bit redundant, since a majority of the population is, sadly, way ahead of you on this. Thanks for the chuckle, though.

Drama v Literature

[bettiwettiwoo]

I think you're right in saying that people go over the top in demanding absolute (absolutistic) adherence in adaptations of their favourite oeuvre. Well, if doesn't exactly mimic absolutely everything in the book(s), then it isn't a proper adaptation at all and I shaaaaaaaan't have it!. There seems to be genuine and general difficulty in distinguishing drama from literature: what makes literary sense (or, at least, what doesn't detract from literary qualities of a literary work) is quite different from dram

Internal versus External

[Shadow Wrought]

Written works are about an internal struggle and the overcoming thereof. Essentially it is how the protagonist changes and grows. Movies are inherently externally focused so the changes have to be shown on the outside. SO following a book verbatim would actually make for a rather crappy experience. This is why movies from books are called "adaptions" ;-)

As for the renting of clothes and gnashing of teeth: maybe that book means a bit too much to ya...