 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000 time: 07:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Comparing is fine and good and useful, but as soon as judgment terms like "better" are brought in, it becomes meaningless. |
Not at all. Better here can function in three useful ways:
1) As somebody already pointed out, most adaptations are primarily concerned with the narrative of the original text. Moreover, for most of us the reason to go to the movies is to be engaged by the story. Therefore, the question of whether the movie or book is "better" at telling the story is very much relevant.
2) "Better" is not necessarily a judgment about the quality of the book/film; it could be a judgment about the quality of one's aesthetic experience. I'm one of those people who find the films of LOTR "better" than the movie, because I found the films very engaging and the books horribly dull. Obviously, somebody who found the opposite to be true would have a different sense of which was "better," but the comparison would still be valid.
3) "Better" might also refer to what the book/film achieves on its own terms. Comparing books to films is a little like comparing ice cream to hamburgers -- but it's still easy to say that Ben & Jerry's ice cream is better than McDonald's hamburgers, since what B&J achieves as ice cream is better than what McDonald's achieves as a hamburger. In that way, the book Ragtime is better than the movie, because what the book achieves as literature is more impressive than what the movie achieves as cinema.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|