Quote:
Originally Posted by Roiffalo
I wouldn't say a fault per-say. It's probably just harder for someone with ADD to focus on the same thing for so long. It's likely a good thing to be so descriptive, especially when adapting to a movie. The whole thing is written out RIGHT THERE, there's no excuse for getting everything so wrong! Unlike in a book where you have to take a lot of time to read all the details, movies have the benefit of showing everything in one frame. You experience the environment as the characters interact with it, saving time that King dedicates so much of in written words. The book is certainly giving me some more respect for King because of that.
|
Right, but because of how descriptive it is, there is little you can do to develop it. In other words, movies that are less descriptive leave the film maker the ability to adapt it in a way that suites more people. With King, we have an exact vision of what happened in the book and if it varies even slightly the die hards will point it out. If it isnt adapted exactly it becomes a point of frustration. The trouble is with direct adaptations, there really isnt enough material. Think about this, you spent twenty minutes listening to the description of what was in Eddies medicine cabinet, but in a movie, that is literally a 20 second scene. If you compress all of those details in scenes into what they actually mean on screen, you end up with a very short movie. These scenes need to be drug out, or there needs to be some addition in order to stretch it to movie length. See what Im saying. Think Richie at the bar before he leaves for Maine as an adult. The deal with snorting to lime juice, what is damn near a chapter, would play out on screen in 5 minutes.