I don't think it's that they didn't understand. They movie just focuses on something different from the book. Where the book is highly conceptual and philosophical, the movie applies this in a very personal way. I walked away thinking about how every story ends in sadness and despair. Even though we can't see the future in this much detail, we all know how every human story ends. And yet, we engage with hope, and I think life is still worth living.
> They movie just focuses on something different from the book.
1. It's not a book. It's just a short story. It's only 16pp long or something.
2. The central point of the story is: brilliant linguist learns to write an alien script and it teaches her to see the future. That is the core plot in a sentence. The film loses that.
Don't get me wrong: I liked the film, as a modern SF film: i.e., brain damaged into mindlessness, but still quite pretty.
It's like a version of Hamlet in which he lives happy ever after, though. It is missing the point in the most profound possible way.
I just completely disagree with you. Watched the film and read the short story. The central premise absolutely comes through. I watched the film first, and understood it well. Love all of Ted Chiang's stuff, too.
It's funny though, I do feel a bit the same way about Dune. It's a Cliffs Notes of the book, and doesn't add anything new and thought provoking. Mindless but beautiful.
Still, I wouldn't say it missed the point. Just that it wasn't really necessary.
Fair enough! De gustibus non est disputandum after all.
I did say:
>> Don't get me wrong: I liked the film, as a modern SF film
I agree about Dune. If you know the book, it's a very pretty retelling. If you don't, it's a sort of weird summary with no signs of why so many people love it so much.
