06-03-2006, 06:32 PM
As my film professor said, in much more eloquent wording:
A film is supposed to be an adaptation of a book. It is not supposed to be an exact duplicate because the film is supposed to be a different piece of artwork compared to the book. When you go to see a film, you're watching a "2-hour" version of the important elements of the book expressed in a manner that comes together, leaving out the less important, non-story-driving parts.
The fact that Mr. Adams wrote the screenplay makes it even better in the fact that he's telling you what he found to be important to get out of a film adaptation.
With that said, I still wasn't a fan of the movie, but I thought it was still very well made.
A film is supposed to be an adaptation of a book. It is not supposed to be an exact duplicate because the film is supposed to be a different piece of artwork compared to the book. When you go to see a film, you're watching a "2-hour" version of the important elements of the book expressed in a manner that comes together, leaving out the less important, non-story-driving parts.
The fact that Mr. Adams wrote the screenplay makes it even better in the fact that he's telling you what he found to be important to get out of a film adaptation.
With that said, I still wasn't a fan of the movie, but I thought it was still very well made.