[Contact spoilers ahead]
> It is a given in the film industry that the film adaption of a
> previously published work is open to the interpretation of the
> director's vision. Take "The Lost World" for example. Spielberg
> wanted a T-Rex wreaking havoc on San Diego and so he incorporated it.
End result: lousy movies from OK books. The ending of the book was the
best part of it; Ellie was conducting a search for alien signals, and
eventually found one which she had to interpret. The aliens were
simultaneously performing massive galactic engineering projects to find
and interpret messages that 'God' hid in the fundamental constants (and
she proved the existence of the aliens by finding the first message in
pi). I found that far more impressive than some tired old parable on the
value of faith.
> Books always have a different and more personal dimension because it
> is up to the reader to provide the imagination behind the author's
> words. In a film, that is done for you.
Only if the film and book tell the same story. This sounds as though the
two are *very* different.
> Next to the "Goo" thread which wins hands down, this one is
> pretty popular right now, with most of the responses coming forward to
> debunk with fervor rather than explore the sociological and
> psychological impact.
But we know all about the sociological and psychological issues; crop
circles, UFOs etc are just new religions by different names.
Mark
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Mark Grant M.A., U.L.C. EMAIL: mark@unicorn.com |
|WWW: http://www.unicorn.com/ MAILBOT: bot@unicorn.com |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|