There's a saying in the movie industry that if your movie is about what you actually think it's about, you're in big trouble. I think it's the same with books.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I mean, there are things in the book you could never do in a movie.
Books provide context and allow you to think about things over time. Film is like writing haiku; there is an immense amount of pleasure in paring down and paring down. But it isn't the same.
When I see films made from books, I make a huge effort not to remember the book. It's important to see the film as a film.
I'm always frustrated when somebody makes a movie out of a book and they leave the book behind, or the heart of it.
Some writers get snooty about what happens when their books are adapted to film, but I don't feel that way.
You see, the interesting thing about books, as opposed, say, to films, is that it's always just one person encountering the book, it's not an audience, it's one to one.
I know a movie and a book are two different things and you are going do different media in different ways. No author can want a movie to be exactly like the book because then it will be a bad movie.
Unfortunately, the author of a book pretty much gives up control of the story when the producers take over a book to make it into a movie.
I'm always interested to see what films are made of books. I kind of don't participate as a filmgoer in any kind of debate about what's better, the book or the movie. So I think it's interesting when people want to do it.
By the nature of cinema and how it literalizes what we envision, movies can have difficulty replicating that connection we make with a classic book.
No opposing quotes found.