Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think the audience is being unfair and have flawed expectations if they go into a movie adaptation of a book and expect it to be "better".

They're fundamentally different, and as long as the creators and the audience are on board with that fact you can absolutely make quality movie adaptations from books as long as you play to the strengths of the medium.

You can't make a movie with as much depth and breadth as a book. You can't cram as much exploration and detail in and hope it'll come out even halfway decent. What you can do however is show beautiful and breathtaking imagery, and offer action and thrill-rides the likes of which you can't hope to match with the written word.

Reading Lord of the Rings makes me appreciate just how special it is that Legolas and Gimli become friends, because there's more room to explain the relationship between dwarves and elves. I get to feel what Frodo feels when he leaves his home behind.

But when I saw Rivendell or the Mines of Moria for the first time in the movies it overshadowed what the books had told me about those places. And I still to this day get goosebumps whenever I see the charge of the Rohirrim. Something I never experienced in the books.

Is one set of experiences better than the other? Or are they just different.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: