You know, there's an awful lot of talk about about Enders Game the Movie™, and I'm just as anxious as the next person to see this happen but I started thinking about what other movies could be made from OSC books and I thought of one of my favorites, The Worthing Saga.
But it wouldn't be as great as a TV show. That way you could really let it get deep. I think sometimes you lose a lot of things from a book when you try and smash it into a two hour dealio. I'd imagine that it would be a lot like LOST where you continuously follow the story but you could have random flashbacks from Jason and Justice of Capitol and the world Worthing and then all the possabilities of a "flashback of a flashback" because the swipes look into other peoples minds. Whoever does the film can even pretty accurately follow the book.
Whoa-- on a side note, how did a swipes head not explode having so many meories of other people in their minds not to mention when they started looking into OTHER swipes' minds and their memories of others memories (and of other swipes memories of swipes, etc, etc, etc.)?
Yeah. So I think it would be an awesome TV show. Who would want to watch it?
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
JOSH WHEDON!
get josh to do it, that would be awesome
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Joss.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
Did you ever see the tv show "The Sentinal," or more recently there's cop drama with a psychic who flashes into past event when she enters a crime scene. Those shows worked because the main characters had the ability to sense tangible things. They 'saw' or 'heard' something which the audience could also see and hear. The reason why Jason's telepathy wouldn't work is because what he 'sees' is completely intangible. He 'sees' motivations, thoughts and feelings. Those are the types of things that are extremely difficult to convey on screen. They are easy to 'see' in print because the author doesn't have to show us them, he can just tell us, but when the plot depends on us knowing, as Jason knows, what the guy next to him is thinking, it will take a lot more to present those thoughts to the audience in a way that doesn't make the guy's thoughts so transparent that anyone could read them.
Personally I think this is the reason why a lot of books are very good, but don't make good movies or shows. Books rely on internal action, such as motivations, feelings, and thoughts. Television and movies are much more restricted to external actions simply because these are easy to convey. There are ways around the this restriction, like having flashbacks, cut scenes, and 'face the camera monologue' but all these things disrupt the flow of the story to a certain extent, and pull the viewer out of their immersion in the scene, you have to have something very compelling to pull them back in again afterwards. Anyway, that's my spiel on why (name your favorite book) would be difficult to convey on screen in a manner reflective of the original. Different media naturally emphasize different types of action and conflict.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
*chants "Whedon, Whedon, Whedon"*
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: Joss.
ha ha thanks alot, I had to look up his last name to get the spelling right, guess I should have payed more attention to his first name.
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Audeo: Did you ever see the tv show "The Sentinal," or more recently there's cop drama with a psychic who flashes into past event when she enters a crime scene. Those shows worked because the main characters had the ability to sense tangible things. They 'saw' or 'heard' something which the audience could also see and hear. The reason why Jason's telepathy wouldn't work is because what he 'sees' is completely intangible. He 'sees' motivations, thoughts and feelings. Those are the types of things that are extremely difficult to convey on screen. They are easy to 'see' in print because the author doesn't have to show us them, he can just tell us, but when the plot depends on us knowing, as Jason knows, what the guy next to him is thinking, it will take a lot more to present those thoughts to the audience in a way that doesn't make the guy's thoughts so transparent that anyone could read them.
Personally I think this is the reason why a lot of books are very good, but don't make good movies or shows. Books rely on internal action, such as motivations, feelings, and thoughts. Television and movies are much more restricted to external actions simply because these are easy to convey. There are ways around the this restriction, like having flashbacks, cut scenes, and 'face the camera monologue' but all these things disrupt the flow of the story to a certain extent, and pull the viewer out of their immersion in the scene, you have to have something very compelling to pull them back in again afterwards. Anyway, that's my spiel on why (name your favorite book) would be difficult to convey on screen in a manner reflective of the original. Different media naturally emphasize different types of action and conflict.
shoot all of that is rememedied by one good montage scene...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)