Wild Imagination

There's no question about it, no director can't beat it... My imagination makes any fictious book better than they can on film.

Seriously though, characters tend to be so much fuller and richer in books than they can ever put on screen. Written descriptions of scenery can be much more captivating than they can with a camera.

That doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good film!

The film that inspired me to join this group is "The Time Traveler's Wife" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452694/)
Audrey Niffenegger wrote the book and it's unique in its kind. If you haven't read the book, the film is good, but if you've read the book before, you'll miss a lot in the film and the story gets not even fully told.

Perturbee Perturbee
46-50, F
4 Responses Feb 12, 2010

I wish the onlinegrandpa would come back and tell us some. I know he must be right, but I can't remember any.

@onlinegrandpa: you're entirely right in stating that they are two entirely different forms of telling a story. That's the problem at the same time. Most of the times when a book or novel is *adapted* (read: re-written) for a film, it's made to fit to those exact requirements. More often than not during this process a lot of richness gets lost. At least for me. <br />
On top of that, I'm not a visualizer (around 60% of the people are visual in their heads), contextual forms of media do make more sense for me.<br />
<br />
There are indeed exceptions, but I can't name any from the top of my head.

No doubt there are some. Do you mind naming one or two?

Being a rabid fan of visual storytelling, I'd like to point out one cannot compare a book to a movie. That's really an apples/oranges thing. Movies require an entirely different method than writers employ to tell a story, including the 2 or so hours to tell it.<br />
<br />
At the same time, I've seen movies adapted from novels where the story was actually improved by tightening up everything.