Thanks, I wondered if the book was better or different. Apparently it's a closer adaptation than I thought, which doesn't bode well for the book?
It was not bringing anything to the narrative with the conceit of an oral historian interviewing the various players in the story years afterwards, with very late reveal of who they were. I guess if you haven't come across that kind of thing before it looks shiny and innovative???
I'm thinking much the same thing? Did they never hear of This is Spinal Tap? I mean that's kind of a parody of it. It was done a lot in the late 20th Century.
It's annoying - since most bands break up for other reasons. The Beatles and The Who breakups are actually more interesting as was Queen.
no subject
It was not bringing anything to the narrative with the conceit of an oral historian interviewing the various players in the story years afterwards, with very late reveal of who they were. I guess if you haven't come across that kind of thing before it looks shiny and innovative???
I'm thinking much the same thing? Did they never hear of This is Spinal Tap? I mean that's kind of a parody of it. It was done a lot in the late 20th Century.
It's annoying - since most bands break up for other reasons. The Beatles and The Who breakups are actually more interesting as was Queen.