I, Her Son
14 years ago
Monday, July 16, 2007
Movies Are Movies
And are therefore not books. As to not insult any one person specifically but more of a general idea, I wont be linking to any particular place but I'm sure evidence of the following is abundant. If I read one more review of a movie that also has a book version, and the review reads something like, "OMG, every inch of the book wasn't covered! This movie is teh suxxorz for not having Harry's ultra pissed off section properly depicted!! The book pwns! - Fanboy" I'll go ape shit. If you haven't noticed, movies and books are two different forms of media. Whats really awesome in a book, might very well suck ass in a movie. Just think how uncool a Live Free or Die Hard book would be. In a similar way, I'm glad every ounce of Harry's life as a wizard isn't covered in the movie. Although Harry Potter fans tend to be a little different in this regard, it takes most people multiple sittings to read a book. If a movie isn't over in about 3hrs tops, people will get pissed. Meaning all of the "good parts" from a 1000 page romp need to be contained in usually a 120 min time frame. So hearing every detail of Ron's breakfast cereal will likely be omitted while the cool ass wizard fight might be expanded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I understand but at the same time you don't understand either. Yes, you can't cover everything in a movie that's based on a book, but people get mad at certain movies, such as "the davinci code" and "harry potter" because they leave out things that are quite essential. i've seen both movies with people who have never read the book and everytime i've had to explain something that they've left out that a person that hasn't read the book wouldn't just assume.
the latest example i can think of is the latest harry potter. the big thing that they left out was the building of a relationship with sirius and harry and also that the "prophecy" that harry and voldemort will have to eventually fight was not actually meant for harry, but that it could either be for harry potter and voldemort OR neville longbottom and voldemort, which questions whether voldemort should even be after harry or will neville be the one to bring him down.
so when most people get upset about things like that, they do it because something essential is left out, leaving non-readers quite confused...
Referring to the Potter reference, I personally have read no more than a page or so of the 1st Harry but absolutely love the movies. In Harry Potter movie world, I am not confused and everything goes together. While the movie might lose "Neville is the new Harry" plot line, to people, like myself, who never knew it was there, it doesn't hinder the story. It doesn't seem to be an integral part of the story. I think the argument breaks down into actually defining what is essential and what is not. To someone who has read DaVinci or Potter, there are probably some parts that you read and consider are hugely important and "essential". But in movie world, where the audience isn't as patient and needs more active entertainment, it may not be all that important to still get the gist of the story line. Just like half the world probably doesn't know nor care that Iceman was an original X-Men and came before Wolverine (who is much more popular) nor do they care that Mystiqe was Rogue's foster mother and the biological mother of Nightcrawler. While those seem pretty important to me, they arent to the average movie goer who hasn't read all the comics. Movies are different beasts from print mediums, and all have their own strengths and weaknesses. I think movies and books should therefore be judged according to their own standards in their own world.
Post a Comment