-[ Quoting Dorothy Reynolds , to Dennis Lucey ]-
 DR> most exciting books I've read in quite awhile. Don't know why
 DR> Hollywood has to take a perfectly great book and ruin it.
 DR> One of the reasons I seldom watch a "made from" movie. Think
I think the movie version of "The Firm" (by Grisham) stood up well against
the book (unlike the other Grisham titles put on film); and, I enjoyed both
even though the movie ending was completely! different.  The movie version
of "Firefox" (by C.Thomas) was also very well done in relation to the book.
So too "The Joy Luck Club" (by Tan) ... though abbreviated.  How about "The
Man Who Would be King" from Kipling's short story, and "The Old Man and the
Sea" from Hemingway.  Effective! migrations from one medium to another may
be rare but they are out there.  Short stories seem to work best due to the
limited time film has to tell the tale.
The movie-going experience's as completely different from the experience of
reading a book as reading about Art is from visiting an art gallery.  That's
why many movies are "BASED on the novel by ..." - because, only a select few
 of the story CAN be portrayed within a 2 or 3 hour window.  This
is not ruining a perfectly good book (imho),  but simply trying to present a
good visual story within the limitations of the medium.  And, the same thing
applies to books based on the movie, or the TV series.  While the movie (or
series) may have been good "AS a movie or a series" the books are rarely (if
ever) readable "AS books."
The problem reduces to going to a movie with the intent of re-experiencing
the book instead of "watching the movie on its own merits" and enjoying the
movie for what the medium of film does best.  Often, I've found, people who
watch the movie version of a story first, find the book disappointing.  At
least in my opinion and experience.
Go figure.  :)
--
... Evolution: Life's a niche, and then you die.
-=- Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
--- SLMAIL v4.5a  (#0185)
---------------