[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tv/ - Television & Film


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: IMG_3121.jpg (468 KB, 1260x2121)
468 KB JPG
Why do readers and literary critics think movies are inferior to their source material? I think ruling out adaptation altogether is harmful, and you can translate a lot to screen that you cannot convey through language. They are, of course, different mediums with different rules. But art would suffer if we got rid of Throne of Blood or Ran by Akira Kurosawa, for instance, despite them departing from Shakespeare’s plays.
>>
File: Adaptation-Nicolas-Cage.jpg (164 KB, 1400x700)
164 KB JPG
60% is not enough, bookfags must suffer
>>
>>222775835
>for instance, despite them departing from Shakespeare’s plays.
the Romeo + Juliet film cut like half of the queen mab speech and all of the rape joke jamie kennedy was supposed to say in the first scene
>>
>>222775835
A sweeping generalization deserves a sweeping generalization. Maybe adaptations would be good if they were all made by Akira Kurosawa. They're not though.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.