comment?

[fflo]

"There will be two completely separate and, I might add, mutually hostile audiences for the resulting film. One will be composed of 'Hitchhiker' fans, millions strong, who will interpret every minute discrepancy between what they are watching onscreen and what they once read on the page as a heresy punishable by law or, where possible, stoning. These people are lunatics, and I am one of them. Opposing us will be hordes of decent, ungeeky humans who will be bewildered and patchily amused by the tale of Arthur Dent and his voyage among the stars."

--Anthony Lane in the New Yorker

Comments

[fflo.livejournal.com]

Hey, I doubt very seriously that you're deluding yourself about how much you enjoyed it in order to protect yourself from chagrin at having parted with a 10-spot for it. Though that sounds a lot like some of my uncomfortable unconnected-to-feeling stuff I've been through a lot of since the H-bomb hit.

My thought here is that there is something that's a shame when people who really like a work of art in one form find it nigh on impossible to be open to enjoying it in another. The quotation would have seemed pretty harsh that way if it didn't turn out Anthony's one of those folks to. I admit, the more I like a book or prequel or original version or TV show whatever went before, the more I anticipate being disappointed by the movie at hand. But a lot of times a good story or premise or collection of characters makes the transition, or can make the transition, in good hands. That is, part of what we like about it to begin with could "work" for the movie, too.

Of course, toning down expectations can sometimes help the experience of watching a film. Mediates disappointment somewhat.

I haven't seen this one yet, and don't know whether I will see it in the theater, but I do like to see a movie on the big screen in the company of an audience.

Interesting concept ...

[lickingtoad.livejournal.com]

Re: books-become-movies?

I don't think anyone wants to see paintings of my sculptures. I don't know if the analogy holds, but it's my general feeling re: screen adaptation. Nine-point-nine times out of ten, I prefer to use my imagination on words for free instead of the above-alluded nine buck charge to see someone else's imagination come to life with, I might add, more incidental and disposable and wasted money than I'll ever see in my lifetime.
(That sounds harsh. An example, though, would be ... let's see ... the reimagining of 'Planet of the Apes.' I have no ground to stand on, I'll admit, 'til I relearn to read French and dive into Pierre Boule's _book._ But the sets and the makeup and the little things about Burton's retry made my soul go *squeee!* Happy! Unfortunately, the plot was godawful.)

Re: Interesting concept ...

[fflo.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, I'd say that's a fairly facetious analogy. Books and movies are storytelling, and some of the best movies have been adapted from books, so there's a kinship that makes movies-from-books a natural idea. Not to knowck paintings of sculptures, necessarily! What the hell do I know? Maybe there could be quite an audience for that sort of thing. You know, as a subset of the audience for paintings.

My hesitations arise when there's a movie remake, too, but I've also liked some of those quite a good bit. You have me interested in seeing TB's Planet now, and I probably wouldn't have been giving that one a look, even for free, at least on my own.