Originally posted by celestialdemon
The point of a movie is to portray the story of the book. If the movie requires you to read the book in order to understand the story better, then the movie didn't do it's job.
You have lost any credibility by saying the point of a movie is to portray the story of the book. That's a patheticly ridiculous thing to say.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Did you even read the rest of my post, or are you selectively blind?
Again with the insults. I read your post. I'm letting you know that that's how this particular comment of yours could be interpreted, especially since you got all pissy just because of a simple question that was asked.
Originally posted by celestialdemon
Then what, oh great one, is the point of a movie when it is translated from a book?
Now you've changed your point to 'what is the point of a movie when it is translated from a book?' Jesus, you were already on a roll and now you have hit the flippin' jackpot; the point of any movie is to make money, that's your commercial aesthetic right there. The point of a literary adaptation is to make more money. Best get those out of the way at first. But somewhere along in this process you get to the point where the film, the adaptation of the book, becomes a work in its own right and should be judged on its own merits. Films adapted from books are adaptations, dramatisations, and therefore allowed to go where the books don't. Think Blade Runner, think Apocalypse Now, think 2001: SO, Jaws, E.T and Brazil. They go in places the novels they were inspired by, adapted from and straight out copied by (in Brazil's case) don't go.
The point is, your opinion neglects to realise that cinema takes source material (such as literature) and takes it places where it didn't go before, where it couldn't. So what if you the Coen Brothers didn't pull out a straight cover-to-cover copy of the book; they instead managed to get to the soul of Comarc McCarthy's writing and award it with a gold flippin sticker.
People failing to understand the difference in different mediums get on my ****. (And I apoligise if I offended anybody with my viral pathetically, it was early in the morning then.)
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The story was presented very well, what a lot of people fail to grasp, is that there's some things that you're not meant to understand in pieces of cinema like this, it adds to the quality.
What are these things you keeps speaking of that you're not meant to understand? From what I remember, I think I understood pretty much everything about the film.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Now you've changed your point to 'what is the point of a movie when it is translated from a book?' Jesus, you were already on a roll and now you have hit the flippin' jackpot; the point of any movie is to make money, that's your commercial aesthetic right there. The point of a literary adaptation is to make more money. Best get those out of the way at first. But somewhere along in this process you get to the point where the film, the adaptation of the book, becomes a work in its own right and should be judged on its own merits. Films adapted from books are adaptations, dramatisations, and therefore allowed to go where the books don't. Think Blade Runner, think Apocalypse Now, think 2001: SO, Jaws, E.T and Brazil. They go in places the novels they were inspired by, adapted from and straight out copied by (in Brazil's case) don't go.The point is, your opinion neglects to realise that cinema takes source material (such as literature) and takes it places where it didn't go before, where it couldn't. So what if you the Coen Brothers didn't pull out a straight cover-to-cover copy of the book; they instead managed to get to the soul of Comarc McCarthy's writing and award it with a gold flippin sticker.
People failing to understand the difference in different mediums get on my ****. (And I apoligise if I offended anybody with my viral pathetically, it was early in the morning then.)
I didn't change my point. We were talking about a movie that was adapted from a book. That's what I was referring to in my original statement.
Besides the blatantly obvious desire to make money (that wasn't even worth anyone's time for you to point out), the point still stands that the point of a movie that is adapted from a book is to portray the story that is in the book. My point doesn't neglect anything. I know that things have to be changed during a translation such as this. That's fine. As long as the story stays true and, like you said, the soul is captured, then it's a successful movie. The point I was making was in reference to chill's statement about having people pick up the book and read it to get more insight on what happened in the movie. If a movie puts something in it that requires you to read the book in order to help you understand what happened, then the movie didn't do it's job. That was my point. I am not in any way accusing this movie of doing that. I'm just talking about any movie in general.
Originally posted by celestialdemonBesides the blatantly obvious desire to make money (that wasn't even worth anyone's time for you to point out), the point still stands that the point of a movie that is adapted from a book is to portray the story that is in the book. My point doesn't neglect anything. I know that things have to be changed during a translation such as this. That's fine. As long as the story stays true and, like you said, the soul is captured, then it's a successful movie. The point I was making was in reference to chill's statement about having people pick up the book and read it to get more insight on what happened in the movie. If a movie puts something in it that requires you to read the book in order to help you understand what happened, then the movie didn't do it's job. That was my point. I am not in any way accusing this movie of doing that. I'm just talking about any movie in general.
It was worth pointing out, very much so, because it is, despite its wordly obviousness forgotten quite a lot. Another reason why I mentioned it was that entirely negates your statement. Your silly little comment about book-to-film adaptions does not stand, I cited various book-to-film adaptations that rebuke it, and you simply can't address the overwhelming support against your point. You also confuse yourself with the use of 'story,' as while you interchangeably switch story with 'soul,' you earlier use story in a completely different context and meaning. The 'story' as the C-man references can be found in the book, the small moments in the narrative course of events he missed, and you him retort for suggesting reading the book for more insight. The book, or re-watching the film as he also suggested, will give him what he missed.
Film adaptations do their job in less obvious ways than a simple cover-to-cover translation from text to celluloid, so much so that it is often the soul that survives the journey to the screen, rather than the simple story. It is the difference of the mediums and your point fails to grasp that.
Originally posted by exanda kane
It was worth pointing out, very much so, because it is, despite its wordly obviousness forgotten quite a lot. Another reason why I mentioned it was that entirely negates your statement. Your silly little comment about book-to-film adaptions does not stand, I cited various book-to-film adaptations that rebuke it, and you simply can't address the overwhelming support against your point. You also confuse yourself with the use of 'story,' as while you interchangeably switch story with 'soul,' you earlier use story in a completely different context and meaning. The 'story' as the C-man references can be found in the book, the small moments in the narrative course of events he missed, and you him retort for suggesting reading the book for more insight. The book, or re-watching the film as he also suggested, will give him what he missed.Film adaptations do their job in less obvious ways than a simple cover-to-cover translation from text to celluloid, so much so that it is often the soul that survives the journey to the screen, rather than the simple story. It is the difference of the mediums and your point fails to grasp that.
It was not worth pointing out because that's the point of every movie. However, why did the Coen brothers choose to adapt this book instead of something more popular that they knew they could make more money off of? Because they enjoyed this story and wanted to translate it into a film. The fact that the movies you mentioned go places the books don't means nothing. They were still inspired by the book and story as a whole is derived from it.
If both movie and book should be judged independently as you say, then there is no point in referring to the book for more insight on the story. Should the original poster rewatch it? Of course. He will definitely understand better that way. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree that he should have to pick up the book.
My point doesn't fail to grasp anything. When a movie is adapted from a book, the overall goal is to stay true to the overall story. Whether things are added to or taken away from the adaptation are irrelevent. It is still an attempt to get the overall story across in movie format. Now, does that mean they shouldn't be judged independently? Of course not. They are different mediums, so they absolutely should be. But since they are different, the movie shouldn't look to the book to clear up any blurry parts. That's the problem I had with "C-man's" statement.
Originally posted by celestialdemon
It was not worth pointing out because that's the point of every movie.
However, why did the Coen brothers choose to adapt this book instead of something more popular that they knew they could make more money off of?
What the Coen Brothers chose and decided with Cormac McCarthy's work is irrelevant compared to the weight the distribution companies can put behind the Coen Brothers name in financial resources. The Coen Brothers have relative artistic freedom to adapt from any literary source they want, but without the financial concerns of the companies producing their film, they couldn't make that film. Ergo it is a financial process that must be recalled because it is the concern, the point, the goal of any Distribution company.
If both movie and book should be judged independently as you say, then there is no point in referring to the book for more insight on the story. Should the original poster rewatch it? Of course. He will definitely understand better that way. I have no problem with that. I just don't agree that he should have to pick up the book.
While they have to be judged independently and not comparatively, that is not to say that they aren't inextricably linked and intertwined. Obviously, it's a great help to have multiple sources when trying to understand a text. That's normal procedure. Many people read a book and watch the film or vice versa, and there is nothing wrong with that; it means there is no fault on the part of either creative process. But they should not be judged comparatively for obvious reasons.
Blatantly, the thing you are not keying into is the role of the audience and the fact that some members of that audience aren't always watching the screen or are interrupted. Nearly everyone but the original poster understood what was being said, done and acted upon in No Country For Old Men, which would lead to the conclusion that it was the original poster's poor luck to miss out. As ChillMeistergen said, you have to rewatch the film or read the book, because while the book is an independant creative product and should never be judged comparatively with the film, it still holds insight into the scene.
My point doesn't fail to grasp anything. When a movie is adapted from a book, the overall goal is to stay true to the overall story.
Whether things are added to or taken away from the adaptation are irrelevent. It is still an attempt to get the overall story across in movie format. Now, does that mean they shouldn't be judged independently? Of course not. They are different mediums, so they absolutely should be. But since they are different, the movie shouldn't look to the book to clear up any blurry parts.
But again there are numerous examples of how that does not work considering the many, many adaptations that not only dwindle away from the source material but completely change what you clumsily put as the "overall story." And that is not even mentioning the fact that you presume that the point of a movie is an attempt to "get the story across" in cinematic scope, of which you have no evidence for and no cohesive explaination for. Take the thematic dislocation occuring when Steven Spielberg adapts the short story "Super Toys Last All Summer Long" into A.I for example. A.I, despite its flaws, does not fail because it does away with the narrative concerns and thematic inspiration behind its source material, of which little is left in the film. Yes, they should be judged differently, that's an obvious point which I have long "gone on about," but that is not to dislodge the fact that the source material is similar. Insight can be gained by enjoying both texts, as well as examples from other mediums like radio.
Ergo, a film does not fail if it does not transplant a literary source with a 100% success rate or if the material is treated differently on celluloid than the page. They are different mediums and should never be judged comparatively. But enjoying the "same" work across different mediums is a useful process anf for that C-Man's statement holds weight. The point of a movie being made is for money, usually profit unless you are Terry Gilliam's production company, yet inherent in that desire is a creative process in which any adaptation should be judged on its own merits and not be hindered by its page of birth. Of course, the original poster (on the evidence of other people posting this thread) was the only black cat in the building but can find out what he didn't get in No Country by either enjoying the book or the film.
Ah, “No Country”.
A great movie. Saw it a couple of times already. Even recommended it to 3 people. 2 friends and a cousin, and they all loved it. The cousin hated the ending part.
I loved the violence in it. Not for the love of it for it's sake but because it wasn't glamorized but raw, cause it should've been. (for that movie anyway) Not that there's anything wrong with some glamorized violence in some movies, if it fits. (Ex: "300" and "Kill Bill"😉 But the violence in this movie fit with the realism this movie's attitude had. The violent acts seemed....real. Like violence you'd see on cctv or a surveillance camera.
Loved the cinematography. The still shots were especially amazing. I liked that barely any music was played throughout the movie.
Editing was superb. There was this once scene i had to rewatch on it’s own that cut oh so nicely. The scene early in the movie, with the dog chase in the water, with the dog coming out the water, growling and sprinting toward that cowboy while he hurriedly readied his wet glock then shooting the dog at the last second. That scene, within those 4-5 seconds, the point of view changes about 9-10 times. You can see the whole bit in 9-10 quick angles that change quickly with the different perspectives ceasing upon the suspense ceasing. Genius.
It was suspenseful as hell and mad creative. An oxygen/air pressure tank use as a door opener/murder device and a shotgun with a silencer?, lol. The story was good. It seemed like it was basically about a drug deal gone bad in 1980 Texas, with 3 characters that hardly ever even meet or aren't even on the screen at the same time, which is what made it sweet cause it still somehow seemed to work, with it being that way.
The ending, just after the kid bribe, was meh, in my opinion.
But I give this movie an:
8/10
Originally posted by FistOfThe Northyeah, that dog scene, MAN....fecking pit bull chased him through the WATER.
Ah, “No Country”.A great movie. Saw it a couple of times already. Even recommended it to 3 people. 2 friends and a cousin, and they all loved it. The cousin hated the ending part.
I loved the violence in it. Not for the love of it for it's sake but because it wasn't glamorized but raw, cause it should've been. (for that movie anyway) Not that there's anything wrong with some glamorized violence in some movies, if it fits. (Ex: "300" and "Kill Bill"😉 But the violence in this movie fit with the realism this movie's attitude had. The violent acts seemed....real. Like violence you'd see on cctv or a surveillance camera.
Loved the cinematography. The still shots were especially amazing. I liked that barely any music was played throughout the movie.
Editing was superb. There was this once scene i had to rewatch on it’s own that cut oh so nicely. The scene early in the movie, with the dog chase in the water, with the dog coming out the water, growling and sprinting toward that cowboy while he hurriedly readied his wet glock then shooting the dog at the last second. That scene, within those 4-5 seconds, the point of view changes about 9-10 times. You can see the whole bit in 9-10 quick angles that change quickly with the different perspectives ceasing upon the suspense ceasing. Genius.
It was suspenseful as hell and mad creative. An oxygen/air pressure tank use as a door opener/murder device and a shotgun with a silencer?, lol. The story was good. It seemed like it was basically about a drug deal gone bad in 1980 Texas, with 3 characters that hardly ever even meet or aren't even on the screen at the same time, which is what made it sweet cause it still somehow seemed to work, with it being that way.
The ending, just after the kid bribe, was meh, in my opinion.
But I give this movie an:
8/10
my only complaint on this movie was that we didnt get to see
Spoiler:. other than that, it was awesome.
Josh Brolin die