3 ms·

While wrong, they are based on a very real set of differences to the relationship of the media to the consumer. That should be celebrated however. Neither is b

While wrong, they are based on a very real set of differences to the relationship of the media to the consumer. That should be celebrated however. Neither is better. You can argue the merits and effectiveness of an adaptation but the media it's communicated on has very little to do with that (usually). I don't know why people treat it as a team sport.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Why "wrong"? Certainly the idea of a book as active and film as passive dovetails with my own experience. Reading a book, well a story at least, to me is a creative process: I create the world the characters live in using the elements the author offers up. Watching a film I get absorbed, hopefully, in to a world that is a fait accompli. Edit: I should say "more active", etc.. I'd agree with the OP that watching a film is still collaborative but in a markedly different way to reading a story.
- ghostly_s 9y ago
  Cinema entirely possesses the capacity to suggest elements of the world which are not defined explicitly, just as books do. In fact I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of perception to think a film can possibly be a 'fait accompli'. As an easy example, I just watched Tarkovsky's Stalker this past week. The film revolves around the exploration of a physical supernatural phenomenon called 'The Zone'. Yet there is not a single thing on screen to demonstrate the supernatural characteristics of this place, aside from the protagonist's reactions to it.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  > Why "wrong"? I'm saying they're wrong to dismiss one medium just because... well, it's that medium (which is basically all they are doing). There is nothing intrinsically wrong about an adaptation of a book: they are just fundamentally different due to the medium. It's the dismissiveness that's wrong, specifically, not the observation of differences.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Why "wrong"? Certainly the idea of a book as active and film as passive dovetails with my own experience. Reading a book, well a story at least, to me is a creative process: I create the world the characters live in using the elements the author offers up. Watching a film I get absorbed, hopefully, in to a world that is a fait accompli. Edit: I should say "more active", etc.. I'd agree with the OP that watching a film is still collaborative but in a markedly different way to reading a story.

ghostly_s 9y ago
Cinema entirely possesses the capacity to suggest elements of the world which are not defined explicitly, just as books do. In fact I think it's a fundamental misunderstanding of perception to think a film can possibly be a 'fait accompli'. As an easy example, I just watched Tarkovsky's Stalker this past week. The film revolves around the exploration of a physical supernatural phenomenon called 'The Zone'. Yet there is not a single thing on screen to demonstrate the supernatural characteristics of this place, aside from the protagonist's reactions to it.
abritinthebay 9y ago
> Why "wrong"? I'm saying they're wrong to dismiss one medium just because... well, it's that medium (which is basically all they are doing). There is nothing intrinsically wrong about an adaptation of a book: they are just fundamentally different due to the medium. It's the dismissiveness that's wrong, specifically, not the observation of differences.