{sub-hijack}
That scene is supposed to take place in Pratt, Kansas. My in-laws live in the next town over from Pratt. I had my honeymoon (well, we stayed in Motel 6 for the night) in Pratt. I have asked around, and I am amazed at how few Pratt people know about The Stand.
But they do have two water towers, one marked “hot” and the other “cold”. It’s pretty funny.
{end sub-hijack}
That’s your option. And your opinion; clearly, we differ on this. I liked the movie when I first saw it, and I still like it now. I also like ABBA, and The Fairly OddParents, and eating an ice cream sandwich by peeling off the chocolate wafers with my teeth first.
As we like to say on the web, YMMV. :dubious:
{to continue the hijack theme}
Part of the programEverwood are filmed or have been filmed on that same street… just further east. The set is sitting between two biker bars:D
{hijack done}
mmm ice cream sandwiches…
A movie and a book are vastly different experiences. A book, and here I’m going to assume that most of the time the word “book” is being used to mean “novel”, is primarily an internal, cognitive experience. Books are experience through language. Books are interpreted by the reader. Meaning is created within the reader’s mind. Books, the best ones anyway, require as much input from the reader as from the writer. Books are the ideal medium for letting a story find its duration, for complex, interwoven storylines and truly deep, complex characters, settings, and plots. Books allow one to take time to focus on insignificant details that don’t push forward the plot, but enhance the flavor of the story, add nuance and subtlety. Books take time, are meant to be lived with and in for a while.
A movie (and here I’m interpreting the word “movie” to mean primarily a feature length fiction film) is more of an emotional experience, which happens to us rather than within us. Movies are primarily visual experiences, with sound playing a large, though smaller role. Movies have their own visual and aural language, and are “read” using the visual and auditory parts of the mind rather than the language part. For most movies, even very good ones, the viewer is a more of a receiver of the content than a co-creator of it. Movies have a very narrow acceptable duration (the vast majority are 90-150 minutes, with very few exceptions), and are almost always intended to be absorbed in their entirity in a single sitting.
Enough philosiphizing. Now for some practical matters. It is the time difference that creates the most problems when adapting a novel into a movie. Of Mice and Men, about 120 pages in most printings, becomes a 2 hour plus movie when adapted faithfully. Holes, a roughly 160 page children’s book, leaves out some parts of the story and still has to rush from plot point to plot point. Start with a novel that is substantially longer, and it becomes necessary to do some major condensing–leaving out or compositing characters, leaving out or condensing plot points, and reducing the number of rounded characters. No filmmaker is ever going to do this in a way that makes all of the readers of the book happy–some favorite parts have to be left out just because there’s no time for them. Also, some things that work in the abstract, or work just because the author is skilled with the language used to present them, just don’t work in a visual medium.
Movies and printed words are fundamentally different media for presenting a story. Movies should be compared only to other movies and books only to other books. No movie, no matter how well or badly made, has ever altered the quality of the book from which it was adapted.
/hijack on
Well, I can now say that I have seen posts from The Bad Astronomer! I have to admit that the screen name seems a little wrong though. Shouldn’t it be The Good Astronomer Debunking Bad Astronomy or something? 
/hijack off
In the Mouth of Madness by HP Lovecraft. I have yet to see any director be able to translate it
The Bugs Bunny version was excellent!
When I was in high school, my father began reading VC Andrew’s “Flowers in the Attic” books. He got me hooked on them as well. Then we went to see the movie. It was soooo awful. I realize that, for me, books tend to be much better. I am able to create my own movie in my head while reading. While it is quite difficult for me to practice, I also realize that movies cannot follow the book exactly and must make a few sacrifices. But the “Flowers in the Attic” movie went way beyond horrible. Since this experience, I am more hesitant to watch movies that are based on books that I have read. While not ruining the book for me, seeing a “book-based” movie that does not meet my expectations makes me hate the movie even more.