ahammel wrote:What would you do about the footage? It's a large part of the plot that the footage would be almost impossible to produce.
You'd have to either not show the footage, show—on screen—something which is supposed to be impossible to show on screen, or think up a new plot.
What exactly is impossible to show? I mean, it's talked about in the book as being incredibly enthralling to viewers, without actually describing in any sort of detail what is happening on screen. I think you could get away with showing people's reactions to watching it, and even little snippets of the clips.
Think about how most computer activities are presented in film. They often times show the back of the monitor (so as what's on the screen isn't seen) and the person's face (or the contents of the screen out of focus and the person's face in focus). Occasionally you'll see what they're looking at, but not for long, or even only part of what they're looking at. The same as when you see a person in film opening a letter. You rarely see the words on the page. What you do see if the person opening the letter and then crying (old romance movies, or war movies where the mom is finding out her child is KIA), or excited (teen comedy, high school kid gets accepted to college), or getting angry (old romance movies, "Dear John"), etc.
Think the scene in Fincher's version of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo where she's writing SQL, to query the police database looking for information.
You can briefly make out that she's forming a SQL query, but unless you studied the frames as stills you wouldn't be able know what's going on with it. Likewise little tiny clips (or even partial clips) could be displayed, cutting back to Cayce/the viewer's emotional reactions/intent gaze.
I mean, it seems like a fairly common literary/film device, that when the plot involves some "super awesome" piece of art (or book), to avoid actually describing/showing it.