I find many of your points fascinating, Mr. 'Edgethistle, but I have to object to this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
I think I'm most like Saucy here. I just don't see the film and the book as the 'same' in any way; they are separate works, best regarded as separate. To claim that the movie is a dumbed down version of the book is like saying that an apple is a dumbed down version of an orange.
|
You can't make this comparisom at all, since apples and oranges have (if you are a creationist Catholic like myself) one and the same origin in the same God, created at the same time for separate purposes. Or, if you're an evolutionist, then they have separate evolutionary paths parallel to each other, not one derived from the other.
As has been pointed out so many times, the movie is derived from the book. It isn't an evolutionary journey, because that would make it a throwback. The story was not improved to adapt to its new environment, it was, at best, a step sideways. And many would say not even that.
Comparisom to the book is inevitable. It has to happen, just a portrait is inevitably compared to the subject. Until such time as the subject and everyone that knew it dies, the portrait cannot be seen except in the light of the subject. In this case, I think we all agree that the subject (the book) will outlive the portrait (the movie).