I watched The Hunt For Red October yesterday. You might recall that I read it not too long ago. It got me pondering about book to film adaptions (adaptations? I can never figure out which is the right word). Usually one would suspect that you read the books first, then watch the film after. After watching Hunt For Red October, I'm not so sure. While reading it (and knowing that it had been made into a film) I wondered how it would translate, given that near the start Ramius was introspecting for about five pages before he gave an answer to one of his comrades. On its own the movie is still great, but there were certain things missing from the book, but those parts weren't central to the story. That being the other Russian sub that DID blow up from a nuclear reaction, and the US sub that the US scuttled.

It is understandable that a movie adaption will usually have to make some concessions. Some narrative may not be equally conveyed via moving pictures. Perhaps then it may be best to watch a movie first, and then read the book. But I don't recall any other books I've read that have also been movies, so I don't know if this really stands true. I loved the Lord of The Rings movies, but strangely I was never able to make it all the way through the first book, despite a couple of tries. Here was a case where I experienced the movie where everything was fresh. I am still aware that things are missing, as I had read the parts about Tom Bombadil in the book, and on one of the features it was said that if they had filmed the entire council scene as it was in the book, it would taken an extra hour or something similar that would have ruined the pace of the movie.

In my last blog (or maybe it was the one before?) I mentioned I thought I was becoming a screen junkie. So this week from Monday to Friday, I'm going to endeavour to not watch a screen outside of work. I will be breaking that on Wednesday to go and watch Star Trek at the cinemas, and I might break it for a session of co-op Gears 2 if the opportunity arises, but I want to give my eyes a rest. No games, no movies, no youtube or Gamespot. I will still be checking out Gamespot at work though during breaks.

Truth be told, I'm not sure what I will do with myself. I will pick up the reading, but things with screens are my regular entertainment. Perhaps I will invite some people around to play some Settlers of Catan or other board games, and probably clean up a little more. In general gaming news, I am helping dad with the Project Purity in Fallout 3. He has just tasked me to restart the mainframe or something. Apparently this is towards the west end of where I am. I've just put in the fuses. That IS in the west end of that section. What the hell doors is he talking about? I can't find it. I'm sure one of you can answer that for me before next week, or I will look it up in a FAQ. And after playing some Fallout 3 for a few hours, I wanted something a bit more arcade to play. So I played Bionic Commando Rearmed, which I had only played some co-op for a few levels previously, never single player. I'm pretty divided about this game. Grappling around is a lot of fun, but also pretty finicky. It is vastly annoying to swing too far and fall all the way to the bottom of a level and have to climb up again. The boss fights are fun, and I'd love to take the time to figure them out for myself. Problem is if you lose all your lives, you have to start the level all over again. I don't mind repeating the boss fights until I get it right, but I'm not as keen to replay the whole level, which means that if I can't figure out what I'm supposed to be doing by the time I lose my first life, I turn to a FAQ. I lose that sense of discovery you get when figuring out how to beat a boss yourself, but I lose the frustration of having to repeat the whole level. Archaic design choice, or sufficient punishment?