(no subject)
Feb. 4th, 2005 04:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackInspired by: http://www.livejournal.com/users/edith_the_hutt/
We need some sort of scale of "sticking to the original plot."
-10 = Starship Troopers, which I'm informed by 90% of the people who watched it that it directly opposes the main message of the book. (FTR: The other 10% disagree strongly in various ways, and may well be right, but I couldn't think of a better example.)
-9 to -1 = Other travesties, directors spectactularly missing the point, butcherings, tacked on happy endings, and things which are worse than nothing.
0 = Films that have the same name as a book but nothing else in common
1 to 9 = Good adaptions, eg. Jackson's LOTR, films better than the original book despite liberties, eg. 39 Steps, nice tries that somehow fell short, direct lifting, eg. Dune, which filmed everything in the book and then cut out half of it to make it fit.
10 = A perfect and good adaption. Any ideas?
12 = HHGTTG since Douglas Adams converted the thing himself, and actually added new good bits with every format, keeping exactly the same spirit, but more so :)
Do I need more axes[*] here?
[*] As in 'more than one axis' not 'more than one axe'. Isn't langauge grand?
We need some sort of scale of "sticking to the original plot."
-10 = Starship Troopers, which I'm informed by 90% of the people who watched it that it directly opposes the main message of the book. (FTR: The other 10% disagree strongly in various ways, and may well be right, but I couldn't think of a better example.)
-9 to -1 = Other travesties, directors spectactularly missing the point, butcherings, tacked on happy endings, and things which are worse than nothing.
0 = Films that have the same name as a book but nothing else in common
1 to 9 = Good adaptions, eg. Jackson's LOTR, films better than the original book despite liberties, eg. 39 Steps, nice tries that somehow fell short, direct lifting, eg. Dune, which filmed everything in the book and then cut out half of it to make it fit.
10 = A perfect and good adaption. Any ideas?
12 = HHGTTG since Douglas Adams converted the thing himself, and actually added new good bits with every format, keeping exactly the same spirit, but more so :)
Do I need more axes[*] here?
[*] As in 'more than one axis' not 'more than one axe'. Isn't langauge grand?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-04 05:17 pm (UTC)For (A,Q), HHGTTG would be (10,10), Starship Troopers (for me, at least) would be (0,5). I can't think of any examples where the film was accurate but crap.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-04 05:35 pm (UTC)I think what I was missing is that for a good book conveying the ideas is NORMALLY done best by conveying the details, but conveying the ideas is the important thing, so a really good director could do it without the other.
But I'm not sure how this translates into maths. I think there must be A=accuracy and X="x factor" with Quality being a function of both, such that for no X, Q goes 0 to 10 as A goes 0 to inf (so it's limited), but for given A, X going 0 to 10 takes Q from something to 10.
Umm, somthing with logs in, then.