|Books or movies?|
|Written by Chalupa|
|Tuesday, 09 June 2009 12:23|
Have you ever had a debate with someone on why the book was better than the movie? I think a perfect candidate would be The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I love the books and loved the films when they came out. Now that it's been five years or so, the movies are still fun to watch, but nothing beats reading the books. Here are some very interesting thoughts on book vs. film with No Country for Old Men. I haven't personally read the book yet. Liz has and I know she had some criticisms for Cormac McCarthy's writing style. I think she liked the film better, but I'll have to ask her again to make sure.
There can be many differences between the pages and the silver screen. Chapters missing, characters removed, new material completely foreign to the original material. Everything is obviously done with a reason and purpose, but is it for the best? That's really hard to say. Ask 100 people and you'll most likely get 100 opinions. Click the link below to see what Steve has to say.
Since we're talking about Coen films today, I thought it would be good to bring up another article concerning Miller's Crossing. Now the previous link wasn't particularly glowing about the Coens' style, and this next one follows suit. You might be wondering why I'd be bringing negative energy into the blog here, and that's a fair thing to ask. Personally, it scares me to be surrounded by "yes-men" all the time. It's not good. You need to hear the opinions of others that don't love you every no and again to keep your head straight. Personally, I really enjoyed Miller's Crossing, but that's based on a completely unique set of reasons, thoughts and ideas from any one of you. I think it's great when some one can say, "I didn't like that movie" and be able to back it up with a plethora of intelligent thoughts. Click the link below to see what Mike has to say about Miller's Crossing.