a rare case where the movie is better than the text it's based on.
Quote from: SecondClass on June 03, 2016, 09:13:07 PMa rare case where the movie is better than the text it's based on.that's actually very commonmovies are just better as an art form in general though
The medium of film inherently requires massive amounts of content to be cut and omitted when being transferred from a book
You can say a lot more, do a lot more, and have a lot more content in a book. The reason The Shawshank Redemption was a good adaptation was because the original text was a novella, which meant that not much had to be changed.
Quote from: SecondClass on June 03, 2016, 09:40:36 PMThe medium of film inherently requires massive amounts of content to be cut and omitted when being transferred from a bookthis is fair enoughQuoteYou can say a lot more, do a lot more, and have a lot more content in a book. The reason The Shawshank Redemption was a good adaptation was because the original text was a novella, which meant that not much had to be changed.none of this is true, thougheven then, more content =/= good
literally all I said was you can do more in a book, which is objectively true. You have more room for content. That doesn't mean the content will be good, it just means you have the possibility to tell a larger story
Quote from: SecondClass on June 03, 2016, 10:10:56 PMliterally all I said was you can do more in a book, which is objectively true. You have more room for content. That doesn't mean the content will be good, it just means you have the possibility to tell a larger storyno you don'tthat doesn't even make sensewhat about a book gives you more potential to tell a "larger" story compared to film
you can't go over three hours long in a movie
Quote from: SecondClass on June 03, 2016, 10:41:53 PMyou can't go over three hours long in a movieYeah, except Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Godfather Part II, LotR: Return of the King, Schindler's List, Seven Samurai, Magnolia, The Green Mile, Once Upon a Time in America, Ben-Hur, Titanic, and everything on this list.Not to mention TV shows, which can take hundreds of hours to watch. They count as film, too. Movies. Motion pictures.A film can be literally as long as you want it to be.
We're not talking about TV shows
A movie, unless you have an intermission, can only be as long as the viewing audience can hold their bladder for.
Quote from: SecondClass on June 03, 2016, 11:02:32 PMWe're not talking about TV showsi wasi'm talking about all forms of motion picture when i say film
QuoteA movie, unless you have an intermission, can only be as long as the viewing audience can hold their bladder for.that's not true eitherit's just profitable to do it that way, but that doesn't mean a director can't do what he wants
That's just straight up ridiculous; movies and television are completely different entities. You're insane.
If you take a book like IT and put as much detail and attention to every plot point as the book does, it would be literally days long as a movie.
It's not an exaggeration whatsoever. A book contains so much more detail on a tedious level that it's ridiculous to think it could all be placed in a reasonably sized movie.
And yes, the nature and industry of movies and television are vastly distinct. Especially when you're talking about things like content.
Quote from: SecondClass on June 04, 2016, 01:12:47 AMIt's not an exaggeration whatsoever. A book contains so much more detail on a tedious level that it's ridiculous to think it could all be placed in a reasonably sized movie.look at this wayten paragraphs of information in a book can be expressed by ONE image in a movie
are we talking about the industry?no, we're talking about what is possible to be represented on a screen
Oh, please. That's beyond dumb. You can't fit ten paragraphs of descriptions, dialogue, or plot exposition into a single image. You'd have to be shilling for someone to sincerely believe a picture has that much more power than words.
We're talking about amount of content. It goes book > TV show >>> movie