I’m beginning to re-read Life of Pi and I don’t even understand how I could forget how much I love that book. I think, when I’m done, that I’ll watch the movie again. I saw it in the theater when it came out and I loved it as much as the book.
Actually I just want to talk about the whole “the book is way better than the movie debate. Not necessarily about Life of Pi, but in general. I really hate the phrase even though I sometimes use it myself.
Should books and movies even be compared? I saw the Harry Potter movies before I read the books. Loved the movies. Then I talked to a friend of mine who just saw the movies recently (and who has read the books twice, as a child and recently). She said they were shit compared to the books and I just stood there and wondered if I felt the same.
Yes. The books have way more narrative volume. Obviously, I mean.. It’s a book. There’s always tons and tons of amazing details and sideplots in a book, which you can’t fit into a movie (Unless you want to make a complete 12 hour movie per book and no one has time and money for that).
Sometimes it really annoys me. Why can’t a movie be good just because it doesn’t “stick to the book.” I’ve rarely heard people complain when they’ve seen a play based on a novel. For some reason a director is allowed to interpret and creative their own story when it’s on a scene, but on a film set it’s almost illegal. Why?
Of course movies can sometimes turn out shitty, but usually they would have been bad whether they were based on a book or not.
I guess this was just a rant. Sorry.