[ExI] why the book is better

[William Flynn Wallace]

On re-reading you noticed the mistake, eh?

Take the Tolkien books:  superbly written dialog, which the screenwriters
and directors decided to change (to justify their jobs and have some
creative input, I reckon).  But they were not in Tolkien's league, by far.
The book Film Flam was really eye-opening.  Larry McMurtry's books were
made into film and he hated all of them because they were extensively
re-written after he took the money.

I further suppose that the films were dumbed down to a 4th grade level
(which incidentally was the average reading score of the seniors at a local
high school).

Has anyone got good examples of films that were at least decently parallel
to the book?   bill w

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:34 PM 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/20211213/1351e8b9/attachment.htm>