castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Ever noticed how seeing the movie after reading the book rarely lives up to the promise?

Other than the Bourne Identity movies, I can't think of anytime that I've prefered the movie as well or better.

Given my druthers, I'd probably rather see the movie first and then read the book to avoid this disappointment. Of course, since the book comes out first, that rarely happens to be convenient.



But I must make 2 exceptions to this rule. Dune and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy seem to need the book first. They simply cannot abridge or allude to all the stuff from these books in a 2 hour movie. The movies simply seem like a fast and entertaining skimming of these novels. But if I had not read these books, I would be totally dumbfounded by these movies. It would seem like a blur of loosely connected fantastic stuff.


Anyway, I thought watching the recent DVD release of The Hitchhiker's Guide was fun to watch. A light breeze of the book, but it covered the basics in a fun manner. But a lot of the humor in the book is only barely referenced in the movie. So if you've never read the book, then you might find the movie makes little sense because it takes certain knowlege for granted.

Of course, this makes a great excuse to buy the book if you've never read it.

[bannie]

ever read a Tom Clancy book?


oh the movies are so much better and alot less painful

[Brf]

Quite often I have been disappointed by the movie after the book, such as when I saw Jurassic Park for the first time. The movie is like watching the story through binoculars and leaves out a lot.

I thought The Stand wasnt too bad in movie though.....