Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
#26 Old 23rd Jan 2015 at 8:51 PM
I agree that the Twilight movies were better than the books. I like getting inside the characters' heads, but the books were poorly written and I remember thinking that the author had some very outdated and biased social ideas when I was reading them. The movies lack a few things too but have several things going for them such as the music, the setting, the costumes, and the choreography.

I'd still recommend going online and reading the book the author did not publish that tells the first story, but from Edward's perspective. It explains a lot. http://stepheniemeyer.com/midnightsun.html

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#27 Old 2nd Feb 2015 at 9:29 PM
Certainly NOT The Swimmer! *Dyes laughing at how bad even just the trailer is*

I mean seriously, the Swimmer was a short story about a lone rich man becoming an alcoholic and not realizing he became homeless. The trailer, on the other hand.....you have to watch it. AFTER you read The Swimmer
Top Secret Researcher
#28 Old 3rd Feb 2015 at 6:39 PM
Quote: Originally posted by VerDeTerre
I'd still recommend going online and reading the book the author did not publish that tells the first story, but from Edward's perspective. It explains a lot. http://stepheniemeyer.com/midnightsun.html


"I supposed this meant I was now free to slaughter the small, defenseless tribe on the coastline, were I so inclined."



D:


Midnight Sun: the book where Edward Cullen becomes Claude Frollo.
#29 Old 3rd Feb 2015 at 9:19 PM
Call me a nerd all you like, but I think that The Hobbit movies were better than the books. Maybe it's just me, but I like seeing the characters more than reading about them.

Life is paradoxically coincidental to the ironical tyranny applicable to the unparalleled definition of reverse entropy.

"A thunderstorm breaks the wall of darkness." - Lyrics to Storm

"Meh." - me
Mad Poster
#30 Old 3rd Feb 2015 at 10:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
"I supposed this meant I was now free to slaughter the small, defenseless tribe on the coastline, were I so inclined."


What the *bleeping* *bleep* is this *bleep* supposed to be? Certainly not a well written story, that's for sure. The first page sounds like she's trying to use too many big words without quite understanding the meaning behind them, and I didn't get longer than halfway down my page before my brain threatened to short-circuit.

Meh. There are so many better books and movies out there than Twilight.
Mad Poster
#31 Old 4th Feb 2015 at 12:27 AM
Oh, don't get me wrong, nothing she writes is well-written, but I still found Edward's story interesting.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Instructor
#32 Old 4th Feb 2015 at 1:39 AM
Hrm. Interesting question.

Mostly this hurts my brain trying to come up with movies and books where I have definitely experienced both. Granted, the experience of reading a book and watching a movie are two completely different creatures in their own right.

Jurassic Park: The book. Come to think of it, Crichton's books win every time. Sphere, Congo, and Eaters of the Dead fit in there as well.

The Da Vinci Code. The book. Brown's quick page-turning pace is what makes his novels so successful, a movie just can never replicate that. Angels and Demons the same.

The Lord of the Rings. The movies. The books are brilliant for their lore and depth, but in TT and RotK, I couldn't wait to get back to Frodo and Sam. I just couldn't get my mind wrapped around the epic battles. The movies, however, showed me how absolutely huge the scope (and how woefully inadequate my imagination) is. My mind was blown. Same goes for the Narnia movies.

Brewster's Millions. The book. Basing it off the 1985 movie (Wikipedia tells me there were nine (eight available) other movie adaptations. (I might have a mission now.)) The 1902 novel was so charming, original, and creative. The movie was pretty gimmicky.

Trainspotting. The movie. Let me just say that I loved the book. Read it before the movie came to theaters and at the time of reading, it was a huge influence on my life. But... the movie made total cohesion out of a book of connected vignettes, and I found that brilliant. Would be the same answer if I saw the movie first, but for a different reason.

Naked Lunch. The movie. The book is really a series of disconnected scenes. The movie is not at all a retelling, but a wholy new creation with the same spirit. Brilliant.

Harry Potter. The books. Maybe not the grandest of literary masterpieces, but the books are tight with very little fluff. Translating to film, any omission in that excellently woven story really stands out. The movie are a great accomplishment and I enjoyed them as well. But books all the way.

Girl, Interrupted. The movie. I feel bad for saying that as the book is autobiographical and there was way more added to the movie. I read the book, but the movie made me sob like a baby. And not even just a "good cry" but an all-the-feels-in-the-world bawling my eyes out... wait, wait, pause it. I need to collect myself so I don't miss anything that will make me cry more.

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. The book. This Betty Smith classic is probably my favorite novel of all time. A couple years ago I finally tracked down the movie. Surprisingly I was not disappointed. Probably one of the best lead performances I've ever seen out of a child-actor. The movie, well made as it is, lacks the fullness and inspiration of the novel.

Dracula. The book. I love epistolary novels, and Dracula is one the best. Somehow I always feel cheated as the movies lack that format. The letters and journals and whatnot provide a type of heady unraveling. Without that the pacing of adapted movies is just off.

And just to be goofy....

The Passion of the Christ. The book. Never like once did the movie actually explain the significance of Jesus. I mean, really, who takes a tiny portion of the Gospels stories and leaves out the point of it all? Totally just weird torture/snuff porn.

The Ten Commandments. The movie. Okay, there is something innately sacrilegious about turning a portion of a holy book into a movie. But this adaptation of Exodus just adds to the grandeur. Charlton Heston as Moses, yes please.

:P
Test Subject
#33 Old 21st Feb 2015 at 4:54 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
I think I have to mention Lord of the Rings, too. Not that the books are worse than the movies, but in between the action they're a bit... dreary. Now, I'm the kind of person who can read a 10-15 book series (of 500-1200 pages apiece) 5-6 times without a blink, but LotR, despite being "one" book of less than 1500 pages (I've got the collection), I've only read it once, some ten years ago. It felt like ages getting through the thing (perhaps because I insisted on reading the extras, of which took me a week, and I gave up halfway because I just couldn't get the hang of it), but I'd much rather watch the movies again.
The movies, while a bit longer than strictly necessary, were better in a way... Still, it's a bit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gn5T5mJgkk


I can understand why you say this. Now I am a huge Lit geek lol and a diehard Tolkien fan, but I will admit Tolkien is a REALLY hard read. I mean really hard! But in my opinion once you get into the stories and actually get into the action you cannot put those books down. and I will actually admit I did enjoy some of the liberties Jackson took with the book. Now can that be said with the hobbit movies NO! In that case he ruined it! lol but that's just me.

Btw the movies were sooo not longer than necessary! lol
Page 2 of 2
Back to top