Agreed. The difference between a book and a film is that they are completely different things. You can't just graft a story from one directly onto another and expect results.
> What works in books often doesn't work on screen and vice versa. They are different media.
Not really. The biggest issue is time. As far as i noticed, one needs 2 hours of movie for 100 pages of a book. Anything below this (fitting 400 pages in 2 hours) is art. That's why Lynch's version is better.
Exactly
For example, 2001 was a great movie but Clarke's worst book imo because he collaborated with Kubrick to write it for for big screen.
Agreed. The difference between a book and a film is that they are completely different things. You can't just graft a story from one directly onto another and expect results.
> What works in books often doesn't work on screen and vice versa. They are different media.
Not really. The biggest issue is time. As far as i noticed, one needs 2 hours of movie for 100 pages of a book. Anything below this (fitting 400 pages in 2 hours) is art. That's why Lynch's version is better.