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

Vesayen · November 4, 2003, 01:10

People I cant stand..... those who read a book then saw the movie for the book and arogantly say "The book was so much better!"

CONGRA-JA-FREAK-IN-LATIONS! You read a book? Want a cookie? If there is anything that pisses me off after greedy ceo's, its arrogant psuedo wanna be intellectuals. I read 3 books a week and never mention it on conversation, which is the reason this pisses me off so much especially. I would think a large chunk of poly are "readers"-people who read a descent amount so most of you can proboably share my frustration.

Reading a book is no great acomplishment, if you think it is and feel like your special for reading a book, it means your actually mentally deficient but the world has been too polite to inform you of that fact.

FrostyBoy · November 4, 2003, 01:20

You're implying that reading books is difficult?

It's a fact, books are better than the movie.

mrmitchell · November 4, 2003, 01:21

I don't read anything except the warning labels on electric appliances that warn me not to use my toaster in the pool.

But I agree with you. I didn't come to see if some ****in book was better, *******, I came to watch the ****ing movie.

Urban Ranger · November 4, 2003, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
People I cant stand..... those who read a book then saw the movie for the book and arogantly say "The book was so much better!"

Why is it arrogant?

Vesayen · November 4, 2003, 01:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sn00py
You're implying that reading books is difficult?

It's a fact, books are better than the movie.

People who read books on a regular basis are smarter then people who dont.

Stereotypes arent always bad or untrue, in 99.9999% of the cases this is the case a reader is smarter then a non-reader, which is why they are driven to reading.

If someone is a reader you can tell without them telling you, at least this has been my experience-it may differ for you.

These morons think books are difficult because they dont normally read them, and their friends, familly etc(morons tend to live in heards or flocks) dont read either. Thus they scream "look how special I am for reading a book!".

It's never about the book being better or worse-its about them wanting to look special.

BTW LOTR books were awful, but I loved the movies

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Why is it arrogant?

See above, these morons want to act as if they are suddenly superior for reading a whole gosh golly darn book-so now they can sit in judgment of all creation.

Asher · November 4, 2003, 01:31

Books are more detailed. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it is bad.

Vesayen · November 4, 2003, 01:34

Example of bad: Lord of the rings-where there are so many proper nouns introduced on each page that you confuse people with mountain ranges with battles-you need to keep notes to make sense of it....

Asher · November 4, 2003, 01:34

I couldn't stand the LOTR books either.

The Mad Monk · November 4, 2003, 01:58

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.

Urban Ranger · November 4, 2003, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen
See above, these morons want to act as if they are suddenly superior for reading a whole gosh golly darn book-so now they can sit in judgment of all creation.

People saying that don't bother me at all. If I see a movie with a bunch of people and somebody says "the book is so much better" I would be more tempted to track down the book to see if that is the case.

Space05us · November 4, 2003, 02:40

Quote:

BTW LOTR books were awful, but I loved the movies

AKA "The book sucked, the movie was better!"

sorry, but the only people who have ever told me this are the people who dont read books, hear someone say "The book was better" and then go out get a copy read the first page and get frustrated that there weren't any pictures.

even my friends who are half witted morons agree that the book is most of the times better than the movie. LOTR being a good example because just about everyone I know has read them.

Imran Siddiqui · November 4, 2003, 02:58

Quote:

sorry, but the only people who have ever told me this are the people who dont read books, hear someone say "The book was better" and then go out get a copy read the first page and get frustrated that there weren't any pictures.

Obviously you've never read and seen 'American Psycho' or 'The Godfather'. In both cases the movies were better.

And I believe the movies are on the same level as the LOTR books.... the LOTR books are some of the most overrated works in history though

.

Space05us · November 4, 2003, 03:01

Quote:

the book is most of the times better than the movie

maybe I misworded my post, I was trying to point out that you dont have to be smart to like a book.

Rufus T. Firefly · November 4, 2003, 03:32

Here's the deal:

Great books tend to make mediocre movies. Random examples: A Thousand Acres, The Human Stain, The Great Gatsby, Orlando, Beloved. Why? Because great novels hav a richness and complexity that are not easily rendered in 2 hours on film. Moreover, film is an awful medium for capturing a characters interior psychological state -- which is why adaptations of Henry James, F. Scott Fiztgerald, and pretty much any modernist tend to fall flat on screen. Beyond that, the market for great books, and the aesthetic expectations of that market, are quite different from the market for films; the result is that, when Hollywood adapts books for its market, it also has to alter the aesthetics, generally with unfortunate results (think here of the recent Scarlet Letter and its appalling happy ending).

By contrast, mediocre books often make good or even great movies. Random examples: Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, Blade Runner, The Shining, Touch of Evil. Why? Because their popular sensibility matches that of Hollywood, and they are often "polished" in their adaptation (especially true of The Godfather); the movie can act like a second, better draft rather than an adaptation. Also, if significant changes are easier to make in order to improve the text (as was the case with The Shining), since the text is not considered "sacred."

So sometimes the book is better than the movie, and some people know that. Get over it.

Flubber · November 4, 2003, 03:56

vesayen

RELAX

people who mention they read something are not asserting their intellectual superiority, they are just mentioning something related to the topic at hand- IF discussing a movie well golly shucks a comment on the book on which it is based is not out of order

I shudder to think what you would say if someone commented they had seen the movie at an IMAX

Flubber · November 4, 2003, 03:59

Quote:

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 · November 4, 2003, 04:35

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 · November 4, 2003, 04:39

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

DaShi · November 4, 2003, 04:48

Quote:

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 · November 4, 2003, 04:50

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 · November 4, 2003, 05:14

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 · November 4, 2003, 07:03

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

MikeH · November 4, 2003, 07:10

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

Solly · November 4, 2003, 07:11

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 · November 4, 2003, 07:21

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

Rufus T. Firefly · November 4, 2003, 07:32

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 · November 4, 2003, 08:07

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 · November 4, 2003, 08:24

the book dune was better than both movies.

Q Classic · November 4, 2003, 08:28

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 · November 4, 2003, 08:49

@ Duke