Would you agree that some writing is best watched rather then read for example? I was reading a post about 'how to make vampires scarier' by WriterDude and I thought there has got to be a fine thin blue line between reading and watching/visuals. There is so a lot one can write about and there is so much the imagination can reach that will never equal of the visual. Somethins are best seen and others are best read. What I mean a book should concentrate on writing about what the imagination can reach out to and the rest is best life for the media and technology to deal with. One can say writing can be divided into sections such as writing for the imagination, writing for listenings (radio) and writing for the media ( TV and cinemas), writing for children, for adults, comedians, politicians and so on.
yep I agreed just like what Harry Potter and Twilight, those two books are better to watch than read (though I was reading the first one). The concept of the book is so complex that might the readers imagination won’t reach. A lot of characters, unbelievable settings and the spells or words they uttering is better seen with the action.
Visuals are easy. People don't have to think about what's on the screen, it's just there, in your face, soak it up like a sponge. Reading forces one to think, to use the imagination. Not to mention that most visuals don't convey the real complexities contained in the writing. So unless the subject is fascinating and the writing mundane, I don't think most writing is 'best' watched versus read. (And even then, it probably just needs a good re-write.)
Watching Twilight/Harry Potter/True Blood and other TV-series/movies requires less mental energy than reading the books, but the books have the pace of the reader, not that of a director. Also, inner thoughts of characters make books more interesting than the movie versions. I enjoy both and both have their merits. However, I'm glad I'm a writer of novels, not of screenplays.
Screenplay is a skill of its own, and unless you are happy to combine both what you meanyou mean to see, then there is always going to be that conflict between a story line and visual line if you like. Harry Potter for me was better seen rather then read. Its actions speak louder then words and therefore its merits lies within the big screen for me. Poetry howerver to give an example of prose, because I can't think of one book in particular, there were many which were adapted but turned out unsuitable for television, is very hard to pin on a big Screen. So prose words speak louder then action in this instance. So screenplay writers would first see it played various times before writing it up I would say because you have the facilities now with digital. It would be interesting to screenwrite because you can oversee your story in bits, then write it up that way then complete the story to make a film out of it. A book writer however is different because the story is not overseen or checked against visuals, therefore it is best kept as story in a book left to the imagination of the reader. It woud be an experience to be able to do both sytles of writings.
I trained as a screenwriter and have recently been dabbling more and more in prose, but yes Cacian, they are 2 totally different art forms. The rule usually being that the purer the book as a novel, the more difficult it would be to transform into a film. I recently heard that there is a film version of Atlas Shrugged in the works and couldn't be more horrified. How do you condense an 800 page philosophical allegory into 90 minutes without losing everything that's important about the epic struggle of the characters? I don't think you can. And in the book, Dagny Taggart, the heroine, is close to 40 (for practical reasons, she's worked hard to build her career) I see they have cast a 25 year old actress to play her. But I'm going WAY off topic, will save the rest of the rant for an ageism thread. Back on track, a really good, pure film would lose much of it's impact if it had to be laid out word for word in a book. Think about Ingmar Bergman's films- every shot and action is there to tell the story, any superfluous language would water down the communication. A story is a story, and either medium can tell it, but the whole 'let's turn every great book into a movie' trend has to die. Great books make great books. Great scripts make great films.
True. Trying to describe things at length with only the written word is basically an excercise in futility. Have you ever read The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit? Talk about excruciating! I think it's probably one of the best examples I can think of where the author gets carried away with so much attention to the physical details of the surroundings, instead of the emotional/philosophical/psychological aspects. All of the descriptives refer to "Mountains in the West", "Fiordlands to the South", "Forests to the East", "Sunsets on a bearing North by North-west". I'm always like: gosh, I didn't know I was supposed to bring my compass! Some things are better left unsaid. There is a lot you can achieve with the written word which cannot be achieved with a mere visual, and I think authors should try to capitalize on that, rather than trying and thereby failing to paint detailed imagery with words. If someone wants so badly to create the visuals, perhaps novel-writing or story-writing isn't the correct medium for that.
