[ExI] why the book is better

[Adrian Tymes]

Let us not ignore that, as that is part of the reason.

The book typically has more content-length than the movie: it typically
grabs readers' attention for a greater amount of time, and arguably can be
more efficient per unit time at conveying information ("a picture is worth
a thousand words" aside, though books can contain pictures), so can give a
greater amount of plot nuance and setting detail.  Having more plot and
setting tend to result in higher judgment of a book.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:33 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Many of us have heard people comment about books which have been made into
> movies, or we viewed the film adaptations ourselves.  A nearly uniform
> comment… (do I even need to say it?)… the film was good but the movie was
> better.
>
>
>
> Ok.  Sure.  With very few exceptions, that is true.  But… why?
>
>
>
> For the moment’s let’s skip over the fact that film is slow: you can’t
> cover much of a book in 90 minutes of drama.  Ignore that for a minute and
> focus on why the written version just seems better than the drama version,
> even given a cast of really good actors and a good script writer.
>
>
>
> BillW?  Adrian, some of you insightful sorts, do offer a speculation
> please if you have one.
>
>
>
> spike
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20211213/c0731c0d/attachment.htm>