1/6/2023 0 Comments Revealing the monster within![]() In the book, the reader was allowed to watch Bella and Edward’s relationship blossom organically and develop over an acceptable period of time. What takes 4 hours to read in the book can take only 5 minutes to watch on the big screen. In a book, you can much more easily convey the passage of time. #REVEALING THE MONSTER WITHIN MOVIE#And the biggest problem that the Twilight movie had was the condensing of the time line. #REVEALING THE MONSTER WITHIN SERIES#(Well, I was a little less enthusiastic about Eclipse, which ironically made the best movie). But when I heard they were turning the series into films… I knew enough to be skeptical. I adored each and every one of the Twilight books. Far from making her something less as an author, I think it means she’s something even better. ![]() Stephenie Meyer, on the other hand, writes in a style that’s effortless to read, and I greatly admired that about her books. The pages of a Stephen King novel are often riddled with unnecessary details, gratuitous self-bolstering, and a myriad of self-indulgent bursts of internal dialogue that honestly do nothing more than reinforce the idea that the author’s mind is perhaps a little too psychologically twisted. Perfect examples of these two types of pitfalls are “Twilight” (2008) and “The Shining” (1980). I find that the two biggest pitfalls with book-to-movie adaptations are:ġ) Losing the feeling and depth of the story when you condense it into the obligatory 90-120 minutes of FilmlandĢ) A change in content, or departure from how the story played out in the book. My brain will fill in all the blanks very nicely, thank you. Just tell me the basics and the details I need to know, and then leave a little something to my imagination. If it’s not pertinent to the plot, then I don’t need a 3-page description of all the knick-knacks on a fireplace mantel. Books allow you to exercise your own imagination, and a good author doesn’t over-describe their characters and settings. Now, there are a lot of friendly preferential debates out there, including some which will be familiar to my regular readers: Pepsi or Coke? Addams Family or Munsters? Sam or Dean? But even more common is the age-old question - book or movie?Īs an avid lover of anything literary, 99% of the time, I say read the book, skip the film. She penned a number of novels in her relatively short and tragic 53 years, but it was her definitive man-playing-God tale - the result of a rainy afternoon ghost story session with friends (1816) during which it was suggested that all try their hand at writing a horror narrative of their own - that she is remembered for. Mary published Frankenstein anonymously, and many believed her husband to be the author. But it was Mary herself and her dark, Gothic tale of science fiction horror which would be immortalized in history forever. ![]() Not only was this the kind of tale that had never been mainstream before, it was also written by a woman.Īt age 19 in 1816, Mary legally wed famous poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and after his death in 1822, she devoted herself to publishing and sharing her husband’s works. Published in January 1818, “Frankenstein” was, if you’ll pardon the pun, an entirely different breed of monster. And last fall, I decided it was time that I finally read the novel which is credited with legitimizing horror in literature. In 2018, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s classic horror novel “Frankenstein”, or “The Modern Prometheus”, celebrates its 200th anniversary. How is it possible that the girl who loves all things horror and devotes the entire month of October to writing blog posts about her favourite movie monsters - Frankenstein included - has never read what must be considered the literal mother of the horror genre? But until recently, I had never read “Frankenstein”. ![]() In high school, I read Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”. ![]() There was never a vision so horrible in his face, of such loathsome yet appalling hideousness. Gigantic in stature, yet uncouth and distorted in its proportions his face was concealed by long locks of hair, but one cast hand was extended, in colour and apparent texture like that of a mummy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |