Yes, that comment did indeed warrant a spoiler alert. Most people come here to learn about a movie, not to be given plot points, not in advance of watching the movie. Sure, we figure out what happened to Audrina early, but people who haven't seen the movie shouldn't be told that important point ahead of time. And most people are unfamiliar with the book, regardless of how long it has been out, so that doesn't excuse giving things away either.
You can spin all you want, but it is bad form to give away plot points in a post like yours without warning people ahead of time.
I notice you did change the title of your comment, but it only shows up in your later comments, not the original one.
As for the constant book/movie comments I read all the time, I find them a bit annoying. I could go into a long explanation as to why, but in summary, the two experiences of reading a book and watching a movie are completely different. Books allow you to use your imagination, movies are visual, taking that aspect away. Books also can go deeper into stories, have more plot points going on and give more character development than a movie can. Especially Lifetime or Hallmark or similar movies, which are less than 90 minutes long. Movie makers are also allowed to adapt books as they see fit; there is no "rule" that they have to follow books closely. Thankfully.
EDIT: I would add to the above by saying that you will notice that people who haven't read the book a movie was made from always critique it based on the plot, acting, direction, etc. They are far more objective than people who have already formed, in their minds, how characters should look or how the plot should proceed.
When I watch a movie made from a book I've read, I throw out all my experience with the book. I only care about how good the writing, acting, and directing are.
reply
share
dutchchocolatecake
8 years ago
Then it's pointless to make a movie and not get the visual elements correct. Movies are all about visuals, so it makes no sense to say that the visualization in books is irrelevant to their cinematic counterparts.
Audrina's hair is a crucial element to the overall story in the book. Her hair is tied to her identity and to her mother. Her hair and peculiar looks is what drives Vera to do the unthinkable. Vera's apricot colored hair and dark eyes were also tied to her identity and her father. Audrina and Vera were total opposites in the book, and it showed in both their hair and eyes.
It's a visual from the book that is required in the movie just as much as the Dollanganger's blonde hair and blue eyes were. V.C. Andrews had a thing for color symbolism, and you'd know that if you read the books. The grandmother in Flowers in the Attic had grey eyes and wore grey taffeta clothes to symbolize her cruelty and coldness.
Overall, I find your comments disrespectful and lecturing. Stephen King books are extremely long, yet are given a relative amount of cinematic dignity that doesn't take away from the books. With V.C. Andrews, it's the opposite. The movies are taking away from the books in a way you will never understand because you can't be bothered to read the source material. In fact you are hostile to the source material which are what made the movies in the first place. This is how people earn a spot on my ignore list. Goodbye.
reply
share