I prefer to see, and occasionally do in fact see, authentic dramatizations of works of prose fiction. If I had any input into a screen adaptation either of HG Wells' The Time Machine or of Poul Anderson's Time Patrol series, then I would not want to change anything that the characters do or that is described as happening to or around them but I would want to edit some of their theoretical discussions. The Time Traveller says that all material objects merely extend along the temporal dimension, then claims that one such object, the Time Machine, accelerates in that direction, which means that it is moving, not just extending.
A Time Patrol instructor says that the law of non-contradiction is:
"'...not Aleph-sub-Aleph-valued...'" (Time Patrol, p. 10)
What does that mean?
Manse Everard, addressing Keith Denison, who therefore does exist here and now in the current timeline, claims that it might turn out to be the case that Keith Denison does not in fact exist here and now in the current timeline... Let's play that down, leave it out or find some other way to describe the situation.
4 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Another problem is that all filmed versions of any long story will inevitably have to leave out parts of that story described at length in a written text. Because that will often be the only to more or less fitting the story into the time allotted to the film. Which is why I accepted, with regret, omission of anything about the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil chapters from the filmed version of THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is why I think that any screen adaptation of a novel should be a serial.
Paul.
Paul: agreed. A 2-3 hour movie is at most equivalent to a novella.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree it would take a serialization of a long story like THE LORD OF THE RINGS for any filmed version of the story to do it justice. As long as it was accurate and faithful to its spirit! Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment