You read a book? CONGRATULATIONS! *pops you one in the face*

[Flubber]

Re: You read a book? CONGRATULATIONS! *pops you one in the face*

Originally posted by Vesayen
!"
. I read 3 books a week .

I dream about having time to finish a book a week and that is a far off dream-- ahh to have that much leisure time

[Jon Miller]

I can finish fiction that is 400 pages or so in ~8 hours (or less)

there is always enough time to read a book

Jon Miller

[Nubclear]

Book X was better than it's movie.
Haha, aren't I so intellectual? Much more than all of you barbarians.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Whenever I read a thread like this, I immediately think of Jurassic Park. I read it when it first came out. I loved it -- must have gone through it at least a half dozen times, and it helped mold my thoughts on the concept of "responsible science".

Then the movie came out.

I was looking forward to it -- here was one of my favorite all-time reads, brought to life on the silver screen! In a rare instance of zealotry, I actually mange to see it the first week.

...

I'm sure it's a good movie.

...

That was the last thing I was thinking when I stumbled out of that theatre. They had taken that masterpiece, ripped the guts out, changed characters to the point they were unrecognizable, merged and deleted, and screwed up the message. They made it so damn...Hollywood.

I will never forgive them for that.

But if you hadn't read the book, you'd have probably enjoyed the movie for it's breatheless special effects and Speilbergian thrills.

People generally enjoy the first version of something they experience, especially if that first experience was extraordinarily memorable somehow. The second incarnation rarely lives up the the nostalgic precedent set by the first.

[ravagon]

I would've thought it quite normal to prefer a book quite frankly.
If you read the book first then, chances are, you go to see the movie because you enjoyed the book - furthermore you go in with preconceptions of what to expect.
As the movie is based on the book and subject to Hollywood (or insert other) compromises and "artistic license" then its probably quite normal for the movie to come off second best.

As for the arrogant bit - I'm sure there are those (somewhere) in the world who just happen to be arrogant anyway.
It isn't necessarily a prerequisite for expressing a preference for a book.

[MikeH]

Vesayen your point is that it's OK to say that the movie is better than a book but not OK to say that the book was better than the movie?

Do you not think that's irrational and hypocritical? I do.

[alva]

First the movie then the book = good idea
First the book then the movie = bad idea

[MikeH]

And frankly, cumming in someone's face just for saying they like a book seems a bit disgusting.

[Solly]

I thought the LotR books were crap too. In fact, apart from the scenery, the film was boring as hell. Usual sci-fi claptrap.

[Jaguar]

I like to read but I never have any time during the school year.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

There's another factor at work here as well, which has been given it's best voice by Mad Monk in his discussion of Jurassic Park. I think of it as "bad car syndrome." Some years ago, auto manufacturers commissioned a study and found that people who were dissatisfied with their cars were 10 times as likely to voice that dissatisfaction than people who were satisfied with their cars were likely to express their satisfaction. In other words, we're far more likely to call attention to our expectation not being met than to our expectations being met or even exceeded.

I find this is true with movies in general, and adaptations in particular. First of all, if I've read the book already and liked it, then I'm going in with a certain set of expectations; maybe those expectations are unrealistic or unfair, but it is impossible to set them aside. If the movie fails to meet those exprectations, then I'm going to complain, and the obvious form that complaint is going to take is "the book was better" -- because it is the very "goodness" of the book that set my expectations of the movie to begin with.

By contrast, when a movie is based on a book I love and is just as good -- Get Shorty and The Last Temptation of Christ both come to mind -- I will praise the film, but rarely praise it by saying it is as good as the book -- because that is what I expected, and I'm less likely to call attention to my expectations being met.

[duke o' york]

I can't be bothered to read this thread - I'll wait until the movie comes out because it'll be better anyway.

[Q Classic]

the book dune was better than both movies.

[Q Classic]

oh, and before i forget, the books lotr were also better than the bakshi lotr.

not that lotr was particularly well-written... he could have pared a lot of the fat down and gotten rid of that damned annoying ******* tom bombadil.

[alva]

@ Duke