Do You Ever Get Sick Of "The Book Is Better Than The Movie" bit?

Tools    





I'll tell you a bit later.

Can't you tell me just a little bit now?



Can't you tell me just a little bit now?
Is “little bit” tautology since bit is little by itself? Never thought of this before & will try to never think of it again.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Is “little bit” tautology since bit is little by itself? Never thought of this before & will try to never think of it again.
I think it is. Although I suppose there is an argument to be made that a “bit” is a portion or a section, which can be of any size. After all, “sizeable bit” is widely used.



Yes, fair enough, I do see that, especially with regards to withholding visual information, film being by definition more reliant on visuals. (Have you actually seen Malignant? I’m not recommending the thing itself, but I’m not sure it quite conforms to your “real/unreal”dichotomy, because it’s both). I guess to me there’s only so much “withholding” that can be done before it becomes cheating the reader.
Agreed. What I admire about novels is not their ability to have a dog in a story and then in the last chapter be like "AND IT WAS A ROBOT DOG ALL ALONG!!!!!"

But I do think that films fill in more "gaps" than novels do. They do the heavy lifting on showing us what characters look like, how their voices sound. Novels can be more choosey about what they explicitly tell the reader and where they leave room for reader interpretation.

I think it comes down to the quality of the story. I don't have a lot of respect for movies or books that compulsively hide key information just so that they can pull off a big twist at the end. Again, each medium has its strengths and weaknesses. I just happen to think that novels, by the nature of how much of the story is created in the reader's mind, have more flexibility in certain respects.



Is “little bit” tautology since bit is little by itself? Never thought of this before & will try to never think of it again.
Tautology? I don't think that's the best fit. Redundant? Arguably. However, the statement has literal meaning in asking for the merest morsel one can get - something which is not quite a bit - smaller than one would expect (insert joke here). As a figure of speech it's more fun and applies emotional pressure - the overt meagerness of the request emphasizing that one just desires a scrap for the begging bowl.

We could sing,

It was an Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini That she wore for the first time today

or we could sing

Today she, for the first time, wore a small yellow polka dot bikini

The repeated emphasis on the smallness of the garment suggests playfully just how much is being revealed, which makes the line a tiny bit better.



Agreed. What I admire about novels is not their ability to have a dog in a story and then in the last chapter be like "AND IT WAS A ROBOT DOG ALL ALONG!!!!!"

But I do think that films fill in more "gaps" than novels do. They do the heavy lifting on showing us what characters look like, how their voices sound. Novels can be more choosey about what they explicitly tell the reader and where they leave room for reader interpretation.

I think it comes down to the quality of the story. I don't have a lot of respect for movies or books that compulsively hide key information just so that they can pull off a big twist at the end. Again, each medium has its strengths and weaknesses. I just happen to think that novels, by the nature of how much of the story is created in the reader's mind, have more flexibility in certain respects.
Sure. That is interesting, not to mention the postmodern touches that to me always work better on paper (probably to do with what you said re: my freedom to imagine things my way). Hence, I prefer the tripartite The French Lieutenant’s Woman ending to the film-within-a-film device in the adaptation. I’ve got a deep personal connection to postmodernism, I’ve always related to it as a movement since I was a kid, and I still find myself slightly annoyed that there’s some kind of communication gap that means Adaptation and Synecdoche, New York still can’t do what The French Lieutenant’s Woman the novel can. I still remember that very vivid semi-freak out moment when I was reading it for the first time as a kid at school and my brain processed the fact a supposedly Victorian novel just made a reference to WWII. It was like my mind actually stalled. I certainly can’t imagine any sort of film twist having that effect.

A random thought: I also think there’s more space in books for people/protagonists not being physically attractive, which I’m always kind of intrigued by - when the chubby guy gets the girl (Bernard Werber has got a few books like that) - whereas in a film version we’d get two hot athletic leads. Which, to fully own up to my own hypocrisy, is totally fine by me, I’d probably get my aesthetic kicks from it.



That seems like a bit of a strawman. Not everyone argues that the sequel is "never" better. Some argue the original is typically better. Moreover, we're arguably being a bit uncharitable to think that such statements are meant to be read hyper-realistically (i.e., scientifically). Most will acknowledge that there are exceptions to the rule (e.g., Star Trek), so it seems uncharitable to read such statements as absolute claims.


I can't vouch for how obnoxious one is in making such claims, but it seems to be a bit of a truism that sequels are, generally speaking, of diminishing quality.

"Typically" I can accept. Actually, I agree. Most sequels just don't end up beating the original. But there is some who make excuses when there are sequels that beat the original. I.e. Scream 2: "Empire Strikes Back is part of a trilogy so it doesn't count." What the living hell is that?


Btw, I'm using Randy as a benchmark for arguments I've heard from other people. If there's no excuse, it's just a quick "no it's not!" I'm thankful that the stronger sense of subjectivity-based purism found on forums typically avoids such childish defenses.



A random thoughts: I also I think more space in books for people/protagonists not being physically attractive, which I’m always kind of intrigued by - when the chubby guy gets the girl (Bernard Werber has got a few books like that) - whereas in a film version we’d get two hot athletic leads. Which, to fully own up to my own hypocrisy, is totally fine by me, I’d probably get my aesthetic kicks from it.
Right. In a book, a character's looks don't matter as much because our relationship with them is largely about what is internal. Whereas in a film, you're seeing the person the whole time.



"Typically" I can accept. Actually, I agree. Most sequels just don't end up beating the original. But there is some who make excuses when there are sequels that beat the original. I.e. Scream 2: "Empire Strikes Back is part of a trilogy so it doesn't count." What the living hell is that?


Btw, I'm using Randy as a benchmark for arguments I've heard from other people. If there's no excuse, it's just a quick "no it's not!" I'm thankful that the stronger sense of subjectivity-based purism found on forums typically avoids such childish defenses.
Aliens is unquestionably better than Alien. There, I said it, I can go to bed now



Right. In a book, a character's looks don't matter as much because our relationship with them is largely about what is internal. Whereas in a film, you're seeing the person the whole time.
A useful benchmark to remind us what we hold in esteem. Dear mother drives me nuts with dismissing a film because “Oh, I hate that lead’s face, let’s watch something else”. Recently levelled at Ozark because of Linney. The mind boggles. It’s like there’s nothing to the acting profession but physical attractiveness.



A useful benchmark to remind us what we hold in esteem. Dear mother drives me nuts with dismissing a film because “Oh, I hate that lead’s face, let’s watch something else”. Recently levelled at Ozark because of Linney. The mind boggles. It’s like there’s nothing to the acting profession but physical attractiveness.

Does she watch soap operas?



Aliens is unquestionably better than Alien. There, I said it, I can go to bed now
Thems fightin’ words. And I’ve fought sleeping folks before!



Just out of curiosity, why?




Aliens is a big fun, exciting slab of 80's muscle. But Alien is a movie that uses a similarly large canvas to create something mysterious. Something that is legitimately unique. And that is rendered with such a level of detail and beauty and terror that it is pretty untouchable. To this day I can't think of another film that even dares to occupy that space that it fills.



So hard disagree there. I wouldn't even let Aliens sniff the butt of Alien.



Aliens is a big fun, exciting slab of 80's muscle. But Alien is a movie that uses a similarly large canvas to create something mysterious. Something that is legitimately unique. And that is rendered with such a level of detail and beauty and terror that it is pretty untouchable. To this day I can't think of another film that even dares to occupy that space that it fills.

So hard disagree there. I wouldn't even let Aliens sniff the butt of Alien.

Used to have an old VHS copy ALIEN that I loved watching because of the muted colors, aspect ratio, the subtle blurring of dated FX shots, and the "Blair Witch" feeling of it (almost like watching a dated log which was recovered - found footage). I'd put it on in the background and have it play. What I discovered was that I love ALIEN right up to the chest-burster scene. It's great creeping world-building. Slow, patient, beautiful. After the chest-burster, it's a by the numbers 10 Little Indians, our crew being dispatched, one by one, by a guy in a rubber suit.


I am torn, because 2/3rds of ALIEN is perfect, where the ending of the film (after infinite rewatches) falls a little flat. ALIENS is a little bit bigger and dumber, but does not drop off in quality in the 3rd act. Having watched both a million times, I can watch ALIENS all the way through, but don't find myself holding interest in the 3rd act of ALIEN.



It's hard to compare the two, because they're in different genres. In theaters, however, I can say that not many films rivaled the energetic fun of ALIENS. It was a roller coaster up there with the great 80s action adventures.