| wasteoflife! says : ya can't complain about the changes in the Hobbit After All the changes in l.o.r. I cant pin point them all from memory but there are so many. As i said i ain't debating it. Metal forums seem to love having long pointless debates about these movies "whats so metal about l.o.r anyway ? |
| InfinityZero says : citation :
I don't think deviations from a novel equate to a bad novel-based movie. Look at Stanley Kubrick. He Distorted and Twisted the meaning of the books he based his movies on until the themes were deeper and more ponient. He also filled his movies with nuances and subtle Message encoding and subliminal messages that made the films incredibly deep and cerebral. Space Odyssey, The Shining, and A Clockwork Orange all work better as films than they do as novels. I think part of adaptation is the ability to let the creator take their own creative spin on the source material, and I don't get all up in a fuss if the movie didn't include this part or that part of the book. Unless the decision was horrible--like The Burning of the Weasley's house in the sixth Harry Potter movie. That was the dumbest decisions Ever in the HP movies, and I didn't even like those that much to begin with. |
| InfinityZero says : Yes, but most of the shit Stephen King adaptations come from the Fact that they follow the books so adimantly. Look at the awful remakes for Carrie and the Shining--both claim to follow the book more than the original movie but are undeniably worse. Stephen King isn't that great a writer, anyway--just read Christine, the Tommyknockers, or Under the Dome. The 'good' Stephen King-adapted movies (Shawshank Redepmtion, the original Carrie and the original Shining, Green Mile, Stand by Me) all have major differences to their book counterparts but are better because of it. ...Although Misery followed the book quite closely and was still pretty good. But don't forget, King wrote the screenplay to Maximum Overdrive, which was blindingly painful to sit through. |
| InfinityZero says : Nah, Stephen King has many more weaknesses besides having dumb endings. But speaking of bad endings, how could you have read all 1,000 pages of Under the Dome and not raged at how insanely stupid the ending was? It was unbearably apparent that King had no idea how to End the book. I think that King's only real strong point is depicting children and comin-of-age stories. He's really not that good at scary stuff and comes off as devisive a lot of the time. His stories concerning children are really strong though--that's why I thought IT was so well done. The Shining was pretty decent too. But for books like Christine, the characters are terribly bland, every scene is way the fuck padded out, and the Origin stories of why the things in the books are Cursed or Evil are either really lame or confused and sometimes even self-contradictory. When I was a kid I used to be a gigantic fan of King (every single book I read was by him, and as a result I've read almost all of his books and a few of his short story compilations), but I began to realize after a time that he had a lot of flaws as a writer. Then I read 'East of Eden' by John Steinbeck. 'Nuff said. My favourite book by King is The Shining, Green Mile, and Pet Semetary (just because of how fucking Over The Top it is!). I do want to get around to reading the Stand eventually, because I've heard from people who Otherwise don't like his writing that the Stand was his Magnus opus. Have you read it? And what are your favourite books by him? |
