[ExI] why the book is better

[Giulio Prisco]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:32 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.
>

I guess you wanted to say "but the book was better."

True, films based on books are usually worse than the book, often much
worse, and at times they are deplorable hatchet jobs.

But a film doesn't necessarily have to be worse than a book. If a film
comes first and is made by a great filmmaker with great script,
acting, and photography, and a book based on the film is written later
by a mediocre writer to leverage the success of the film, I guess the
film would be much better than the book.

>
> 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