 | | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
|
Scott: (...) The problem with this, of course, is that the movie isn't the book, nor vice versa. As a work unto itself, we can't view the movie's quality based on the quality of the book, because they're two distinct entities. This happens a lot; (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
|
Scott: (...) I wasn't aware of that the book had come from the screenplay, but you raise another good point, bordering on meta-criticism; any film is a re-invention of its screenplay to some degree, and a book is likewise a re-invention of the film (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
|
Dave, (...) of (...) 1000% (...) vice (...) the (...) a (...) may (...) the (...) to (...) Well, I thought the book was from the screenplay, unless I misunderstood. If it is not the case, I agree with your point. However, if it was in the original (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:FvG074.KFK@lugnet.com... (...) If (...) raise (...) re-invention of (...) the (...) I too, recall hearing that the book is an adaptation of the screenplay. Hiring an exceptional writer to do (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
|
(...) I agree in principle, but I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with your choice of adjective (personal taste, I suppose). Dave! (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
