|09:28 am - Mythadventure|
I have some Robert Asprin books. I think I'll read one this evening in his memory.
Booking Through Thursday
Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?
I've actually discussed this before, but books allow you to create your own characters, even ignoring the descriptions. For instance, I've always pictured Ivan Vorpatril as a blond, even though he's not. I really enjoyed the Gulliver's Travels mini-series with, I think Ted Dansen? That was a rich, vivid portrayal of Gulliver that really brought the book to life for me. I think I blogged at the time that it really added a depth to my understanding. I was able to stop trying so hard to picture the setting and was able to focus more on the action. Maybe that's unusual. I know I didn't have the same reaction watching the Rankin Bass Lord of the Rings. But I did with Ralph Baksi's treatment of the same material. The Peter Jackson LoTR didn't add much to my experience of the books.
The trick with a book is to be descriptive but not so descriptive, it's intrusive. And the trick with a movie is to show, not tell. (Pay attention, George Lucas! This is where Ep 1-3 really went off the rails (well that and bad plotting). You were so busy making Ani cute and lovable, that you forgot to show his evolution.)
Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: Berlin "The Metro"