Hollywood keeps translate page to screen. Many give money and give more when the sequels, remake or spin-off are made. They were glorious in awards (nominee including) and box office charts. Such as The Lord of the Rings trilogy (this is the best ever!), Slumdog Millionaire, Prince Caspian, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
But, not all novels had this achievements. Although they had “Bestseller” title on the cover, they slept in gaining dollars. We can say Eragon and The Golden Compass. Why is this happening? Our satisfaction in reading hundreds of pages from books became big disaster and they collected criticisms, scorns, mocks and etc., etc.
What makes the book so good and the movie so bad? And why is this divergence so unsurprising? The answer is simple, but it has complex implications: Novels are long, but movies are short. It's impossible to encapsulate the tonal shifts of a book like Revolutionary Road in a feature-length film, no matter how long those two hours feel.
This is what the movies do to literature, typically: There's so much plot to get in that there's no time to tell the story. Perhaps it's the insecurity of Hollywood: Inflated by the borrowed prestige of books, producers and directors won't stray too far from the guide-ropes of the story.
William Davidson wrote on Slate.com
But, once again, Hollywood is still making those each year. No matter how the final results are, they do that with their great efforts from many aspects. However, it is often the case that the book is significantly better than the movie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment