sapphi_snake said:
zexen_lowe said:
sapphi_snake said:
zexen_lowe said:
Xen said:
Then they damn well should. Not comparing LOTR with HP here, but LOTR movies certainly lived up to the books.
|
Or they were actually better since they cut parts that were totally irrelevant to the general plot (I'm looking at you, Tom Bombadil).
Point is, you can do a book adaptation fine if you want, for example, yesterday I watched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo after having read the book, they adapted a 600 page book into a 150 minute film perfectly, everything that happens in the film happens in the book, sure, some parts were shortened, but the essence of every scene was kept intact. That's how an adaptation should be. When you gotta make up parts that weren't in the book to justify your plot, you're messing up a bit the adaptation
|
I'm a huge fan of The Millennium trilogy, and I must say that I found that the movie sucked. IT has the typicall problem I think an adaptation can have: it seemd as if it was missing parts, as if important moments were edited out. I would've felt that way even if I hadn't read the books. The movie has to feel like it's flowing naturally, not like it's rushing. I didn't feel this way when I saw the LotR films, or Gone with the Wind, which are both amazing adaptations, which rival and in some ways surpass the books.
FTR, from what I understand there's a 3 hour version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (a director's cut I beleive) that has a lot of footage that was removed from the main film, and that version I think will make more sense. I'm also looking forward to the American version later this year.
|
I'm certainly not looking forward to the Hollywood version, I'll prolly watch it eventually but I'm not really confident that it'll turn out well.
I don't really know what parts were edited out, sure it's more difficult with a book I've only read once comparted to the HP series where I've read each one at least ten times, but I certainly didn't find anything important missing. Minor things I noticed is that Vanger hiring Blomkvist doesn't seem as convincing as in the book because he doesn't promise him to tell him about Wennerström, that the decoy they used that he's "writing the biography" isn't said in the movie and I was sad that they cut the part where Lisbeth steals Wennerström's money (it was one of my favorite parts in the book), but those were minor details, overall I found it extremely loyal and well-flowing
|
I actually disliked the fact that all those details were missing. It made everything seem rushed and unnatural. You are right that the part with Lisbeth stealing the money was awsome. It did miss some edgy parts (like the part when the villain was about to rape Michael), and I am afraid that the Hollywood version will be even less edgier.
I also wish they had adapted it to American society, like they did with The Departed, rather than the events taking place in Sweden, but with people speaking in English. With the Swedish version, it just seems redundant. I guess they did not like the fact that the villains in the following books would have had to be Republicans.
|
