Adaptation

You can never tell a bad adaptation till you read the book, true? Possibly not.

So I'm watching this movie which is adapted from a book, and after some 90% of the movie's done with, they bring a plot device in that you've never heard an utterance of before this moment. It's a pair of pants. Now this pair of pants plays a surprisingly important role later on, but it's never been mentioned before? Fuck you, Hollywood. You just didn't want to get into the details, did you?* I've seen it done before, hell, I've read it done before.

I loved No Country For Old Men, but there were bits I loved in the book--pivotal conversations--that were left out for lack of time, and you wonder if it made sense reducing the impact of the story to make a flick of it. In this particular case, I'd say it did, especially since we're given a lot more from the actors and the Coens. But I'm really scared to watch The Road (another of McCarthy's masterpieces). Sure, there's Viggo Mortenson, but I've seen the dude fail now and then. Is that the memory of The Road that I want in my head? I don't know. I'll wait for reviews before I watch this one.

But I digress.

My point is what's the point of the adaptation? If it's to lend more to the story then fine, do it. But this is Hollywood we're talking about. It's so rarely been about the art. And if Hollywood is gonna take every good book out there and make a movie off it just for a few bucks, then what's the point of writing a book? I mean, how long before people just say, "Screw reading it, I'll just wait for the movie."

*To be fair, I haven't read the book this movie's based on, so I don't actually know if said pair of pants is mentioned prior in the book.