From: "Rich Gauszka" 

I can agree with you as long as the essence of the novel is in the movie. I
can understand having to omit portions of a book ( Tom Bombadil in LOTR
'Fellowship of the Ring' or minor changes (Arwen saving Frodo at the river)

Sometimes a book is just badly translated into a movie ( Hitchhikers guide
to the galaxy )

I don't like where a director changes significant portions of the story,
even the eding as Kubrick did in 'The Shining'  ( topiary hedges in book 
vs maze, Hallorann  murdered by Jack in the movie. Jack's death, hotel
destruction )


"John Beamish"  wrote in message
news:op.tl5dkus9m6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
>A *constant* debate with V (Valerie ;-) ).  I take the position that the
>book is the author's telling of the story and the movie is the director's
>telling of the story.  One approach works well when the mind is conjuring
>up the background images, scene settings and "music" or
"voice".  Those
>approaches aren't necessarily appropriate for a visual tale telling so
>things like "character backgrounders" and "getting inside the
>protagonist's thoughts" will invariable lead to the same story being told
>in different ways.  V simply wants the movie of the book.
>
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:05:00 -0500, Geo.  wrote:
>
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote
in message
>> news:45a95293$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>>> My problem with V is that they dumbed it down so much that even Alan
>>> Moore the creator of the graphic novel asked to be disassociated from
>>> the film.
>>
>> There should be a warning that if you read the book you should not watch
>> the movie. I thought HHG sucked because I read the book, everyone else
>> seemed to like it though.
>>
>> Geo.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5