Originally Posted by nycindie
It's a mistake to judge how good a film is by whether or not it was faithful to the original material from which it was adapted. Film is a visual medium. Books require imagination. A screen adaptation usually MUST stray in order to be tell the story well on the screen, and for the pacing to keep the viewer's interest. You simply cannot include every detail of a long book in a film script. Adaptations are very tricky for even the most experienced screenwriter. Of course, diehard fans of a book always feel like a film should be exactly like the book, and if it isn't, it's a travesty (case in point - the absolute rage there was over the ending to My Sister's Keeper!). But a good director knows that is impossible to do. What they try to do is evoke the right tone or emotional atmosphere of whatever book is being adapted.
... yep, I do realize that. I never expected the movie to match the book.
It depends what perfection means to you. No human being is perfect, but isn't that what makes us perfectly human? As far as I've been told [because I haven't read the books and don't plan to] is that the films were actually better, because they got rid of all the pointless nonsense from the books. That added with 3 hours or so length for each film, they were able to put a lot of the stuff that really was relevant into it.
I didn't realize perfection could be interpreted. Its.. well.. perfect. There isn't an in between. It either is, or isn't. Striving for perfection pushes everything we do.. it allows for progress. To achieve perfection creates an immediate ceiling on achievement. Thats why I don't believe anything is perfect.
JRR Tolkien's LOTR is pretty much the bible of fantasy. He defined every creature used in almost every fantasy novel since. And others he stole from previous mythology. He combined, accumulated and created a written work that could have (and in some ways actually is) been considered untouchable. (although some of his other work really is good for a bedtime story.. holy yawners batman)
Thank god Robert Jordan didn't believe in perfection. He took that concept and expanded on it. Building a different world, with more details and deranged the creatures even further. I can read through Robert Jordan and find a lot of little parallels, robert jordan didn't have many creative thoughts, but his books are on par with JRR Tolkiens.
Anyways, I am babbling. I don't believe in perfection because it would limit what we do. Perfection is not a good thing. Trying to achieve perfection is its own motivation. And in many ways, is the only motivation.
Ok as I sit here I am really trying to think of some sci fi I would consider incredible. I spend a lot of time watching both genres but can't think of a sci fi series that blew my socks off like Tolkien or Jordan's books. I am actually a Matrix fan, all 3.. go ahead try and take my geek card.. In its own way it was nearly perfect.. Starwars and star trek (yepper I love both) are both nearly perfect in their own way.. I find myself with sci fi, immediately comparing movies to the god fathers of sci fi. As a 40's to 60's fan of sci fi short stories and movies, its hard to compare the movies of today to the absolute creative juices used back then. I crave science fiction of that level. Imagine toasters being brand new in your home, and having the gaul to write about robotics and sentience.
ok thats way too much babbling. I might have to do some googling for sci fi movies that rocks my socks.. haha