Sequels, adaptations, remakes, revivals, etc

[o0Ampy0o]

adapting films to books can be even harder than books to films (which is already hard), simply because films and books thrive on different means of exciting the consumer. A huge battle isn't really that interesting in a book, yet it is extremely interesting if done right in a film.

What a surprise adapting a theme park ride to film turned out to be in Pirates of the Caribbean. Only a studio with lots of movie making experience would tackle such a unique challenge. I loved the first two.

Your example of battles is interesting. The perspectives when writing vs. depicting one in film are very different. One does not usually take a similar approach as the other.

A case where taking a book approach to a film was sort of done is Terrence Mallick's The Thin Red Line. You hear the thoughts of each character on screen. Many people didn't understand it though. The approach worked for Hitchcock.

In non-fiction I read Mark Bowden's book Blackhawk Down years before the film was made. It is comprised of one long battle that took place in a single span of time. It was so intense I could not read it before bedtime at night because my stomach would be tied in knots. I would get so worked up I'd be perspiring when finished.

I didn't expect much from the film but it was one of the first to use a special camera perspective where the rockets came at the viewer so that much was interesting. The film was just another action/war picture and used the true event as an excuse to make the movie. IMO it did not succeed at depicting the unusual conditions the soldiers faced that day. Jerry Bruckheimer so one should not have been surprised yet he also did PotC so who knows?