Good film, bad book
- Thread starter Einion
- Start date
ipaintminis
Active member
I actually just read \"Big Fish\" which has a movie of the same name.
Movie = absolututally incrediable and one of my all time favorites.
Book = never really gets going, all sporatic, no plot line, pathetic.
i read it all just to say i actually read it.
Movie = absolututally incrediable and one of my all time favorites.
Book = never really gets going, all sporatic, no plot line, pathetic.
i read it all just to say i actually read it.
vincegamer
Active member
The Ten Commandments
Wren
Member
I wouldn\'t call the book The Name of the Rose bad, but whether it was the original writing or the translation, it was pretty dry. The film, however, is very moving. The addition of the romantic element and the student\'s choice between love of his master and learning and romantic love is a strong one, and the level of acting and overall presentation of the film are top-notch.
While not a film, I have to say the TV show Sex and the City is far more enjoyable than the book. While the show has its issues, the book is just terrible, full of nasty, unsympathetic characters.
While not a film, I have to say the TV show Sex and the City is far more enjoyable than the book. While the show has its issues, the book is just terrible, full of nasty, unsympathetic characters.
OK I have my Industrial Strength Flame Proof Suit(tm) on and I\'m hidden away at the bottom of a bomb shelter on the moon so I\'m ready for the chorus of abuselol
Lord of the rings; as books go it\'s a bit poo honestly. Not wanting to take anything away from good old Tolk, the father of modern fantasy, but the books are just plain boring. Three pages on how the violets look pretty whilst they\'re tromping through the middle of nowhere and an in depth look at how Sam cooks his coneys but barely a paragraph on the big ass battle of Pelenor Fields (and most of that is about who was going home in an ambulance). The film has it\'s faults but it also has great big elephants, dead things on horses, big flaming beasties and yes even pirates (of a sort). What more does a film need (apart from some kind of robot that turns into something quite ordinary to keep Uber happy)?
Lord of the rings; as books go it\'s a bit poo honestly. Not wanting to take anything away from good old Tolk, the father of modern fantasy, but the books are just plain boring. Three pages on how the violets look pretty whilst they\'re tromping through the middle of nowhere and an in depth look at how Sam cooks his coneys but barely a paragraph on the big ass battle of Pelenor Fields (and most of that is about who was going home in an ambulance). The film has it\'s faults but it also has great big elephants, dead things on horses, big flaming beasties and yes even pirates (of a sort). What more does a film need (apart from some kind of robot that turns into something quite ordinary to keep Uber happy)?
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Undave, (sounds like a sock puppet for uber or evil dave? )
You forget that LotR was written back before we all had TV\'s and instant access to 30 minute \"solve the problem\" type shows or 2 hour \"save the world\" movies.
It was written to be enjoyed as you were home all summer with nothing to do - no gaming consoles, no pc\'s, no TV\'s. Maybe an evening radio show to keep your brain going.
You forget that LotR was written back before we all had TV\'s and instant access to 30 minute \"solve the problem\" type shows or 2 hour \"save the world\" movies.
It was written to be enjoyed as you were home all summer with nothing to do - no gaming consoles, no pc\'s, no TV\'s. Maybe an evening radio show to keep your brain going.
vincegamer
Active member
Come to think of it, I read it while working as a cook at summer camp - no TV, Radio, games, but plenty of free time between meals to lie out by the lake and read.
I\'m well aware of that but I suppose my main point is that Tolk wasn\'t actually a novel writer, he was a linguist. This shows through in the way he spins out the bits of plot where nothing actually happens and almost fast forwards past the action sequences. His main influences were classic sagas and historical accounts where the main protagonists smote each other mightliy but not in any great detail. He pretty much never describes the appearance of any of the main characters either.
True it was a ground breaking book but as novels go the Hobbit was much better
vincegamer
Active member
While I agree much of the book could be culled and it would still be an excellent book, I don\'t think it qualifies as a bad book. I found it captivating - except some of the details about the whale oil industry, particularly as just a few years after the book that industry almost completely collapsed.
Still, such great lines.
\"From hell\'s door I stab at thee.\"
or, the proper method of cooking whale meat: \"hold the meat in one hand. Light a match with the other, and show it to the meat.\"
vincegamer
Active member
Well, that\'s because LOTR was NOT a novel. It was an epic. There\'s a difference. If this were \"good movie/bad novel\" we couldn\'t even consider LOTR.
As a successor to Beowulf, it is pretty good.
