helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
That's precisely the reasoning for the system! The book-readers inevitably and almost unanimously thought the movie was bad -- too many differences and "mistakes," things not how they were in the book or how they envisioned them. I, on the other hand, thought the movie stood on its own as a work of art and was a good one. That is, if there never had been any books, if someone just made a movie, it was a good movie. It was especially good from a libertarian perspective.
And then the second movie was phenomenal. The firing of the arrow... YES! What emotion! What defiance! What hatred of the state! Having now read the book, too, I would say there were a few scenes in which the movie made significant improvements, in fact, that made the scenes far more emotionally powerful and exciting. The whipping scene, for instance. And the arrow scene for that matter. But the arrow, you have to not know it's coming -- or at least I think it works better that way.
I think this movie-then-book plan is a sound practice in general. It is a general rule that we hear "the movie is a major let-down, not as good as the book." That is not the exception, it's the rule. The near-unanimous cry of book-readers everywhere. So, why fall victim to the phenomenon? See the movie first; that way you're not disappointed at its flaws, nor annoyed at its inevitable story-line changes and tweaking. You are free to enjoy the movie on its own, not as a derivative work held hostage by the chains connecting it to its parent.
And then the second movie was phenomenal. The firing of the arrow... YES! What emotion! What defiance! What hatred of the state! Having now read the book, too, I would say there were a few scenes in which the movie made significant improvements, in fact, that made the scenes far more emotionally powerful and exciting. The whipping scene, for instance. And the arrow scene for that matter. But the arrow, you have to not know it's coming -- or at least I think it works better that way.
I think this movie-then-book plan is a sound practice in general. It is a general rule that we hear "the movie is a major let-down, not as good as the book." That is not the exception, it's the rule. The near-unanimous cry of book-readers everywhere. So, why fall victim to the phenomenon? See the movie first; that way you're not disappointed at its flaws, nor annoyed at its inevitable story-line changes and tweaking. You are free to enjoy the movie on its own, not as a derivative work held hostage by the chains connecting it to its parent.