Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight
Hmm, I disagree.
In some sense, all movies are book adaptations in that they're going from script to screen. Thus, to my mind, the art in movie making lies in the transition from written word to visual medium. So I consider films that don't have a visual world to start from more original than films that are derived from an already-created visual counterpart. Comic book adaptions I suppose fall somewhere in between, though I put them on the more creative side since there's still a pretty big gap from drawing to screen.
All that said, none of it matters if the end result is done well, whether it's entirely original or a sequel or whatever. But in terms of what receives more respect from me, it would be movies where most of the movie-specific components are new and not recycled.
|
I disagree that all movies are book adaptations. A script is VERY different from a novel. Personally, I don't read scripts for my lit fix (nor do I see movies for my lit fix - they usually leave much to be desired). With fiction, the author uses ONLY words to create a visual and then it is often non-specific and completely open to the interpretation of the reader. A script usually gives some very specific scene information and blocking in addition to dialog.
I don't have a lot of comic book knowledge, but I can see a shorter path between the two in this case. The writing is not THE most important thing in a comic and is aided quite heavily by illustrations - much in the same way the setting and blocking is provided in a script.