Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoGuy
^^^Book readers always feel maligned by the movie rendition. Interesting when the book is a work of fiction.
It would take a ten hour movie to provide good coverage of a typical 400 page novel.
|
Indeed.
And it would almost certainly be a lousy film.
Novels and films are different animals. The last thing a film based on a book should do is to try and replicate the book. It should not. It should take from the book what works cinematically and discard the rest, while adding new things as necessary.
A great example is
No Country For Old Men. Excellent book and brilliant film - and yet even though some of the dialogue from the book is replicated verbatim i nthe movie, and some scenes are almost identical, the film completely leaves out or outright changes many things. The result is that the main character (who is the Sheriff, not Llewelyn) and the bad guy have significant altered natures in the film.
The last thing I want out of a novel I loved is for the film to try and be the novel. I want the film to be the film - nothing less and thing more.
Oh... and as for the pulp Reacher novels? Who really cares anyway?