where did you find a "saeyoung" kind of guy?? I need that in my life (also love your blog)
He was my boss? Lol. It was luck I think idk. He went to school for computer stuff but ended up working with cars for a while there since he loves them so much. I wanted to work with cars. We worked together doing custom electrical stuff in cars like building audio systems and installing them etc or installing remote starts and alarms, etc. ^^
Let’s answer my own question, here - none. If you ask me, not one is better than the other. Why? Because the two forms of media are incomparable as far as I’m concerned - and I don’t know why people bother arguing about their differences. Of course it’s possible to enjoy one adaptation of something over the other, but pairing them side-by-side and slagging off the other or no clear reason? Um, no. Please, stop it.
The most common argument you’ll find for this is ‘The Shining’ debate. Which is better - Stephen King’s book, or Stanley Kubrick’s film adaptation? The real question I think is ‘why are we bothering to put them against each other?’. A book contains tonnes of writing quirks, graphically accurate and beautiful descriptions, oodles of character and story that can go on for as long as it pleases with interconnecting threads, and not to mention - it succeeds in making the reader use their imagination entirely - and allows them to be completely lost in their universe for as long as the reader wants. Now, may I ask, how on EARTH is that comparable to film? At all? Films feature nuances that books just can’t have - experimental camera angles, awesome actors portraying the characters and improving some of the most famous scenes in history, set design, sound design, script converting, visual tricks and audio cues, building pure atmosphere from score, mastering editing techniques - and in most cases - these adaptations have to be squeezed into 2 hours to keep the attention of its audience - and especially with Kubrick, he managed to do all of this WHILE making the audience think about what they saw - instead of just providing mindless entertainment for the sake of it. One is not better than the other, because they’re completely different, and do completely different things to convey the same story. I mean, Kubrick’s Shining misses out tonnes of shit from King’s book - but who said they were supposed to be the same thing? Why the fuck would you bother making a movie if you’re just going to copy the book?
Now that’s not to say you can’t prefer the characters or story in a book compared to its film counterpart - that’s perfectly okay. There are some movies that portray the characters, script the words and do everything utterly horribly, leaving to a massively bad job. Likewise, some books based on films can be awful too for the exact same reasons. But people never argue about the medium itself and how one is a bad film or one is a bad book, they’re always pitted against each other - almost like they review the film AS a book. I hear it all the time from people, people saying Kubrick’s Shining is shit because ‘it’s just not the book’, and no other reason than that. Or it’s shit because ‘it’s too different from the book’. Or it’s shit because ‘the writing isn’t the same as the book’. Or, my favourite, it’s shit because ‘it’s not how the book described it’. As if to say ‘everyone’s imagination is the same as mine, and the way I see it wasn’t made into a film, so it’s terrible’. If you look at the book AS A BOOK, why not look at the movie AS A MOVIE? If I reviewed movies as games, every movie ever made would be fucking terrible. If you can appreciate the subtleties in a book’s delicate writing, why not appreciate the technical subtleties in a movie’s delicate construction? Because of this, I don’t think both versions of The Shining are ‘equally good’. I think one is an excellent fucking book, and the other is an excellent fucking movie. And I love them both for completely different reasons, over things the book doesn’t have, and over things the movie doesn’t have. They’re both made in completely different ways and strive for a completely different method of telling a story, so I really don’t think it’s fair to compare them on that basis alone. Of course the movie misses shit out, it’s because it’s condensed into a few hours. Of course the book can’t be visually confusing or experimentally trippy with its camera angles, because it’s words on paper. Of course the book has deeper characters, it’s because pages can be dedicated to describing them and building them up. Of course the movie has a suspenseful and engaging score, because it’s a fucking movie. Both do things completely differently, and I think we need to focus on them against other books/films in their respective mediums. Books can be good or bad, as can films, but I don’t think you can call books better than films, or films better than books. If they set out to do the same thing, they wouldn’t both exist.
If it’s your birthday today while reading this fart, then happy frickin’ birthday to you - and please remember to stay beautiful! <3