It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
orcishgamer: The True Blood HBO series is about 1000 times better than Catherine Harris' books, because Harris is actually a fairly terrible writer (I'm sure she's a nice person and tries hard, her writing is simply tragically bad).

Caveat emptor: I haven't watched the True Blood series in several seasons, it could be ass now, it started out great, though.
avatar
Robette: "So, how is her writing?"
"Well, I am sure she is a really nice person"
Beautifully devastating, neither going to read the book nor watch the series thought.

I guess I am going to draw a bit of heat for that, but I would consider listing Lord of the Rings...
I read only 1 1/2 of the books and stopped about half way into book two because at the time it felt like it was just dragging out. I was rather young back then thought and would not really insist on this evaluation, I might just have been a lazy reader at the time.
Tolkien's writing is "out of character" for a lot of what people are used to reading these days. A lot of people get hung up and bored in The Two Towers. Return of the King is much easier for most people to take.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by orcishgamer
avatar
Telika: Also, in the "haven't read" category, Benchley's Jaws is supposedly awful, compared to Spielberg.
At the end of the book the shark bleeds to death. Awful is right!

As for the earlier Clockwork Orange post, I'm going to give that a 50/50. The book is great but it is written entirely from Alex's narration and thus REALLY REALLY REALLY heavy with slang, and that can make it a bitch to read.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by tinyE
avatar
Robette: I guess I am going to draw a bit of heat for that, but I would consider listing Lord of the Rings...
I read only 1 1/2 of the books and stopped about half way into book two because at the time it felt like it was just dragging out. I was rather young back then thought and would not really insist on this evaluation, I might just have been a lazy reader at the time.
Don't think getting older makes one appreciate Tolkien more, it's usually the other way around. People tend to fall in love with his work in their teens and then either retain a nostalgic affection for it for their whole life or move on. Tolkien's writing is also pretty dodgy technically, which bothers younger readers less.
avatar
MGShogun: This.
avatar
tinyE: I've got the book literally just a few feet away from me collecting dust. Is it worth reading at all?

Oh, and at the risk of getting political let me throw in "Starship Troopers" if for no other reason than the book was nothing more than a load of pro-war Macarthyism bullshit and the movie was actually making fun of all that.
For me, the book is kinda...... messy and too over the place. What the movie did was hack, hack, hack and cut out the absolutely unneeded craps and make it taut movie.

However, you should give it a try to get your own opinion on it.
avatar
Robette: I guess I am going to draw a bit of heat for that, but I would consider listing Lord of the Rings...
I read only 1 1/2 of the books and stopped about half way into book two because at the time it felt like it was just dragging out. I was rather young back then thought and would not really insist on this evaluation, I might just have been a lazy reader at the time.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: Don't think getting older makes one appreciate Tolkien more, it's usually the other way around. People tend to fall in love with his work in their teens and then either retain a nostalgic affection for it for their whole life or move on. Tolkien's writing is also pretty dodgy technically, which bothers younger readers less.
Don't know about ring, but my love for the hobbit kept and keeps growing at each reread.
I've never been in that position, I usually hate the movie versions. I suppose Lord of the Rings might qualify, I don't like either of them but at least I finished watching the movies.

Not the same thing, but I find The Warriors videogame to be better than the movie, and some of its flaws come exactly from being too faithful to the movie. I know The Warriors was based on a book too but I never read that one.
avatar
DaCostaBR: I've never been in that position, I usually hate the movie versions. I suppose Lord of the Rings might qualify, I don't like either of them but at least I finished watching the movies.

Not the same thing, but I find The Warriors videogame to be better than the movie, and some of its flaws come exactly from being too faithful to the movie. I know The Warriors was based on a book too but I never read that one.
A lot of the love for that movie comes from how campy it is. A few years ago Wicked named it one of the top 50 cult movies of all time, whatever that means, and I've always loved watching it for the over the top theatrics, and the "baseball" gang. I had no clue it was a game untill just now.
For me it's The Big Fish. In my opinion the book isn't written very well. Even the 'fantasy' parts are boring and a little technical when it comes to language/narration.

The movie by Tim Burton is full of magic and poetry though.
This is going to make me sound like a drooling idiot, but I prefer the film of Life of Pi to the book. The book is so weighted down with elaborate metaphor that the film's streamlining and use of visual delights were necessary to make me truly appreciate the story.
avatar
Telika: Don't know about ring, but my love for the hobbit kept and keeps growing at each reread.
Man, I dunno. The only thing about Tolkien that might appeal to me more now than it did to my awed teen self 15 years ago are the catholic undertones that became more pronounced in the last years of his life. Galadriel is actually his Mary figure, but the cross between spiritual Lady Philosophy and carnal Beatrice has been done countless times in literature, and frankly, often better. What I do like about her is her rebellious streak, though my guess is that's something Tolkien intended to erase before he died. As in, when Galadriel turned to Mary in his mind, he already worked with other back stories than the one we got in the Silmarillion. Pity, a rebel Mary is a damn cool concept.

Anyway, I've known a lot of people who liked Tolkien in their youth, a lot who didn't, and a lot who originally did and then moved on from him, but as far as I remember none who didn't enjoy his stuff early on and then later changed their minds.
Bill the Galactic Hero was a better scifi book than Starship Troopers IMO...but it clearly wouldn't have existed without Starship Troopers.

And I've always loved Tolkien. I love Tolkien more the older I get.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by jackalKnight
In my opinion both Fight Club and American Psycho were better film adaptations than novels. They weren't bad at all--I've read both of them, and enjoy other stuff Palahniuk and Easton Ellis have done, respectively. It might be more accurate to say the talents of David Fincher and Mary Harron (the directors) and the ensemble casts used coaxed out the silver screen potential and charisma of those works to really shine as social satires.
avatar
PaterAlf: For me it's The Big Fish. In my opinion the book isn't written very well. Even the 'fantasy' parts are boring and a little technical when it comes to language/narration.

The movie by Tim Burton is full of magic and poetry though.
This is good to know, since I've been tempted now and then to pick up Big Fish to read.
Post edited February 10, 2013 by MaridAudran
avatar
tinyE: snip
It's made by Rockstar for the PS2 and Xbox. If you liked the movie you should definitely try playing the game, one of the best parts is the subplot about fighting the Soho Hi-Hats, that mime gang, where you trash their gallery and they swear vengeance.

I like both the movie and the game but the events of the movie constitute the last three missions of this 20 mission long game, so in the game I just feel like I know the characters better and all they had to go through to create the Warriors and get to where they were at the start of the movie.

The reason I say it's too faithful is because, as you may remember, there's a character that dies right at the start of the movie, and that was fine there since we just met him, but in the game we spent the last 15 hours with so to see him die so unceremoniously just because it's what happened in the movie doesn't feel right.
I never dug the movie of "American Psycho". I think "Fight Club" is obvious thought because in the right hands it can much more effective to show what the main character is going through with film than in a book. You can't splice "subversive images" or "subversive characters" onto a piece of paper. Well some say you can but now we are getting into "They Live".
avatar
tinyE: You can't splice "subversive images" or "subversive characters" onto a piece of paper. Well some say you can but now we are getting into "They Live".
tinyE, I like you, but that's madness!