Not worth idea of disliking any given change, or even the whole movie. It's the idea that you should or CAN just "shoot the novel." What does that mean?

Unless you're literally filming the pages going by, you are making personal, creative, editorial choices by moving from any medium to any other.

... which I guess is why I'm doing this as a continuing education class in January, lol

He didn't try to improve... he just thought it would be fun to play around in the pages. Which is exactly what he did.

Branagh tried to just "shoot the novel," (or at least came closer than anyone else thus far) and failed entirely, because he made Victor too sympathetic. So the events played out like the book, but the themes and ideas failed entirely.

MrDowning: Precisely. I mean, in a sense making any movie is an act of hubris because you're declaring you can make something as good on film as exists in print.

I actually like the weird bookishness of the Anna Karenina film from, what, ten years go? But even that is a hugely "inaccurate" and "unfaithful" take because I'm pretty sure the book doesn't involve the characters... being in a book

Everything you do is changing the novel. You can't film a book. and when you try, so many things can go wrong. Tons of stuff like narration or flashback or subjective viewpoints require alteration.

Or as you say, you end up with a "faithful" run down of events but entirely lack the spirit (See also: SNyder)

"I'm glad you have such strong opinions and hope you can find the adaption you are searching for."

Snyder is the TEXTBOOK example. Hell, he remade a movie, and failed to understand the point of the movie. Even more so for books!

komikbookgeek: I'm actually gonna make this topic one of my little tiktoks/insta videos but not call him out, it's fine.

MrDowning: yuuuuup

You can "shoot the book" and have the subtext and text be so out of whack it boggles the mind.

awesomeness

I need a much longer list of topics though. still trying to figure out what I'm doing