Dune

[axltrauts]

the only use i gave to the lotr movies were to see the characters i imagined. no more no less. that should be true for many adaptations.

and there is something that i thank to movies adaptations: that i can enjoy of all those unknown books that i´ll never have the oportunity to read, cause either they are hard to find (really unknown author or the availability on the stores) or they are not printed anymore. Movies are also useful to "discover" those talented but unknown authors.

So? Films can convey a lot of images which books can't. Maybe you could imagine the stargate from 2001, or the nightmarish interzone from Naked Lunch, but actually seeing it validates the imagery and drives the point home. It's not as if films leave no room for thought; if anything, they are more open ended for the viewer because of all the media elements involved, as opposed to a book's text on a page (and that's that).

true. but it´s also true that adapting a book is really hard. Was the Godfather book better than the movie? i never read it (or watched the movie)

[OnTheBounce]

While I couldn't give a monkey's about Dune or LOTR, the lame, Mobile Suitless movie version of Starship Troopers royally sucked! I knew it was doomed the moment they linked Paul Verhoeven to it....

Verhoeven appears to be something of a one-trick pony when it comes to sci-fi. While I think that Robocop was probably one of the best indictments of the '80s corporate mentality it was largely out of place in Starship Troopers. Not to mention that it really seems that the people who worked on the movie either didn't read or missed the point of the book. For instance, when troopers are snatched by bugs their comrades commit mercy killings rather than attempting pickup, which was one of the paramount issues in the book for the troopers. ("The math doesn't make sense, but it's very human.")

Books into movies are usually bad though, and lose some momentum of the book. I think movies based on shorter stories are usually better as they have something to base it off and can more-or-less follow the story while having some freedom, while novels into movies usually seem rushed and to quick. Mabye some stories should be left on paper.

That's a really good point, actually. I remember Poe's reasoning for short stories was that a reader should be able to finish it in one sitting. Since films are the same way maybe the two make a more ideal match, although I can still think of some exceptions, for instance a story that tells a very compressed version of a long series of events, which is where writing is on its strongest ground, where film excells at details.

OTB

[Franz Schubert]

While I'd say that the majority of Hollywood films are garbage there's quite a few real gems that have come of that cesspool, too, and they were produced by major studios.

I don't even think the majority of Hollywood films is garbage, since I enjoy a lot of them. What I am saying is that they should merely be considered entertainment, as opposed to actual art.

Now, if you wish to qualify your statement w/a "in the last 10 or so years" I might go along with it.

If you think (as I do) that Hollywood movies in the last 10 years have been for the most part "uninspired", just wait for the next ten years... It's going to be composed of mostly sequels and spinoffs/ripoffs of other movies. On the bright side, however, there is going to be some great special effects...

Which also means that the images are limited to a reader's imagination, where a film can take you beyond those limitations.

Films can take you beyond the limits of the imagination in certain cases, like Bullet Time (The Matrix bullet scene) for instance. I don't see how the coolness of that type of thing can really be depicted with words. However, I was thinking more of characters, which are created visually in your head as you read a good book, as opposed to movies where the actors are what you see. And also locations, which are important for me to visualize, since my favorite genre is fantasy.

If you can put the impact of sight and sound to work in your imagination better than the best film directors and the cohorts that are working for them, my hat's off to you

Remember, with books a great deal relies on the author. For instance, books by a *great* author, like 20,000 Leagues under the Sea by Jules Verne, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, or Dracula by Bram Stoker, would create vivid images in even the least imaginative minds. Of course, they could just go see the movie Leage of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which contains characters from all three of those books, and permanently lose several IQ points. (That's how bad it is, read the books instead because they are SOOO much better. And I know that is an opinion Max... but it's also the truth )

[POOPERSCOOPER]

I bet SuperH is going to reply with something like;

What else would you have define truth?
No truth is anything but an opinion.

[SuperH]

What else would you have define truth?
No truth is anything but an opinion.

Psychically, I feel that the first non-quoted sentance in the post after mine will start with... oh... here it comes...

"The main problem is that innovating in Hollywood movies today..."

I totally kicked that Yuri guy's ass there. He can't even bend a spoon. I can totally bend time. Badass.

[atoga]

If you think (as I do) that Hollywood movies in the last 10 years have been for the most part "uninspired", just wait for the next ten years... It's going to be composed of mostly sequels and spinoffs/ripoffs of other movies. On the bright side, however, there is going to be some great special effects...

The main problem is that innovating in Hollywood movies today is that it's too costly to innovate or come up with something original because it doesn't have guaranteed commercial success. It's a lot easier to make broad-based, formulaic films in an effort to appeal to people who like films of that genre. Hollywood has created very little that's really innovative, original, controversial, or thought-provoking in the past few years, though they have made some decent, watchable movies.

That's why I'm more into cult movies, I guess.

Remember, with books a great deal relies on the author. For instance, books by a *great* author, like 20,000 Leagues under the Sea by Jules Verne, or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson, or Dracula by Bram Stoker, would create vivid images in even the least imaginative minds.

The exact same can be said for directors... directing is a very complex art, and how images and whatnot reach the viewer is very complicated. Why do you think so much is spent on advertising? It's hard getting the message across within the medium, whatever it may be. Directing is like that, only much harder... and longer.

And what's wrong with a mind fuck like LXG every now and then? (granted, I haven't seen LXG). So long as you don't take it seriously, it's a good way to pass the time.

[Hemogolobulous]

All of the books were great. The first movie was good, if not completely accurate. The TV series comes in two sets: 3 DVD "Dune", which is the first book, and 3 DVD "Children on Dune", Which is the next two books and the end of the made for TV series. I think the series is quite good, much better than the old movie, but still not as enchanting as the books.