![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cimorene(Written on Twitter before I realized it was becoming long-winded. Edited to remove abbreviations)
As an opinionated kid bookworm who didn't particularly like movies and tv as a medium, it was easy for me to also get to the "Books are always better" idea. But as time went by I grew out of it, not only because I read excerpts of Twilight and The DaVinci Code and saw the associated (laughable, but definitely less obviously awful) movies.
I also grew out of it because I came to better understand how 'better' and 'best' in this context assumes that these terms can be empirical and universal, which implies that everyone gets and wants the same things from their entertainment. (This is obviously not possible. I don't even always want the same things from my entertainment and I'm only one person.)
(In fact I was pleased when, in brief class discussions along the lines of "the best book you've ever read" and "your favorite book", nobody agreed to the questions - everyone who spoke acknowledged that these are a matter of opinion and circumstances.)
But somehow when it comes to book vs. movie this gets thrown out the window. It's obviously true that when it comes to an adaptation, there's always the question of interpretation, and you can probably always argue, therefore, that something was lost - whether that's actual content, in the rewrites, or the mood, or the creator's intent (I'm for death of the author, but people can and do argue on that basis, and that's also legit if that's what they want from an adaptation).
Still, though, you shouldn't judge an adaptation only as an adaptation (or a transformative work only in relation to its canon). It exists in conversation with its source text, just like any other fanwork, but also in conversation with other texts (and movies). It can have things to say of its own, which it can say well or not. And it can ultimately reach a different audience, and have a different effect on them, sometimes solely by the change in medium. It can draw that audience to reading the source text when they otherwise might not have, or it can lead a reader to regard the source text in a new light.
It's fair to downgrade the Lord of the Rings movies on the scale of canonical accuracy, as they certainly depart in many ways, if that's the rubric you want to use. But if all you want is the exact content of the book, why would you ever approach any adaptation in the first place?
If you judge the movies on remaining generally faithful to the books but under 15 hours in length, then many people have argued that they achieve better-than-average success (and, in my opinion, some moments of magic) when compared to other literary adaptations. I also think that they succeed at that, although that, obviously, is debatable. On the other hand I also think that Tolkien had way more excuse for the amount of racism in his books than Jackson had for the amount in his movies, but I doubt that was in any of my classmates' minds.
LOL, so our current theme for vocabulary/etc. in Finnish class is literature. Every time a film adaptation comes up, 3-5 ppl yell "The book is always better!"
I'm like... 'Aww, look at you living in that childish book-lover's world!'
I mean, I used to think that too, sure, but the world also contains shitty books & films that improve on them.
The world even contains good(ish?) books that are still better films than they were books.
And then it contains even more complicated adaptations like HP and LOTR.
LOTR was the subject of the last shouts and I just zipped my lips, but I will fight you re: the use of 'better' there. Better in which way?
Movies and books have hundreds of characteristics and each one has strengths and weaknesses.
Maybe the adaptation lost a lot but made a couple of significant improvements (more female characters), while still being problematic (racism).
Are you really gonna cover all of that with a lazy, simplistic, inherently problematic term like 'better'/'worse'?
As an opinionated kid bookworm who didn't particularly like movies and tv as a medium, it was easy for me to also get to the "Books are always better" idea. But as time went by I grew out of it, not only because I read excerpts of Twilight and The DaVinci Code and saw the associated (laughable, but definitely less obviously awful) movies.
I also grew out of it because I came to better understand how 'better' and 'best' in this context assumes that these terms can be empirical and universal, which implies that everyone gets and wants the same things from their entertainment. (This is obviously not possible. I don't even always want the same things from my entertainment and I'm only one person.)
(In fact I was pleased when, in brief class discussions along the lines of "the best book you've ever read" and "your favorite book", nobody agreed to the questions - everyone who spoke acknowledged that these are a matter of opinion and circumstances.)
But somehow when it comes to book vs. movie this gets thrown out the window. It's obviously true that when it comes to an adaptation, there's always the question of interpretation, and you can probably always argue, therefore, that something was lost - whether that's actual content, in the rewrites, or the mood, or the creator's intent (I'm for death of the author, but people can and do argue on that basis, and that's also legit if that's what they want from an adaptation).
Still, though, you shouldn't judge an adaptation only as an adaptation (or a transformative work only in relation to its canon). It exists in conversation with its source text, just like any other fanwork, but also in conversation with other texts (and movies). It can have things to say of its own, which it can say well or not. And it can ultimately reach a different audience, and have a different effect on them, sometimes solely by the change in medium. It can draw that audience to reading the source text when they otherwise might not have, or it can lead a reader to regard the source text in a new light.
It's fair to downgrade the Lord of the Rings movies on the scale of canonical accuracy, as they certainly depart in many ways, if that's the rubric you want to use. But if all you want is the exact content of the book, why would you ever approach any adaptation in the first place?
If you judge the movies on remaining generally faithful to the books but under 15 hours in length, then many people have argued that they achieve better-than-average success (and, in my opinion, some moments of magic) when compared to other literary adaptations. I also think that they succeed at that, although that, obviously, is debatable. On the other hand I also think that Tolkien had way more excuse for the amount of racism in his books than Jackson had for the amount in his movies, but I doubt that was in any of my classmates' minds.
(no subject)
Date: 30 Apr 2014 08:57 pm (UTC)It takes the entirety of LOTR to get them just to work together? Just individuals, not even groups of them, although it was awfully gracious of the elves not to kill Gimli on sight. >.<