If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Entertainment Weekly)   Twenty-six instances where the book was better than the movie. Watchmen isn't on the list, presumably because the movie was just as good as the book   (ew.com) divider line 196
    More: Interesting, The Great Gatsby, Gatsby, Mia Farrow, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ralph Lauren, Robert Redford  
•       •       •

10840 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 10 Mar 2012 at 10:32 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



196 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-10 01:46:27 PM

Free Radical: They missed another one...

[www.moviesonline.ca image 430x580]


Movie was way better than the book. The book wouldn't have sucked had King left out the hedge animals.

You want to see a movie better than the book, but still close enough to not eclipse it? Misery. All the good parts of the book, yet none of that Bourka Bee Goddess horsesh*t.
 
2012-03-10 01:49:06 PM

LeroyBourne: No Country for Old Men
/yeah I said it. the book is so much more balanced.


The lack of proper punctuation bothered the hell out of me. Since the film followed the book reasonably closely, I'd still give the nod to the book.
 
2012-03-10 02:02:41 PM
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. What a horribly overrated book. The Swedish movie was significantly better. The American movie, while still pretty bad, was still better than the book. Best part? The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...
 
2012-03-10 02:03:08 PM

varmitydog: Forrest Gump. The book was high southern camp, heavily playing on an "idiot savant" theme, that had Gump as a wrestler, an astronaut, a harmonica player in a rock band, a chess wizard and an actor wearing a costume in a monster movie. He didn't take up shrimping, he took up aquaculture. Bubba was a white guy who played with him at Alabama who got drafted with him, Lt Dan didn't turn him into a multimillionaire and his momma was timid mess, always getting ripped off. And the best two characters in the book, the wild man Curtis and the female astronaut with an attitude, were completely left out, along with the best story in the book, the training camp incident where he blew up the boiler.

The movie changed the book into a politically correct baby boomer's nostalgia feel good movie. It became a big hit because it was formula written for a target demographic. But what a disappointment for Winston Groom fans to see what a pile of sh*t they made of his masterpiece.


SO MUCH THIS!!!
Also I enjoyed Running Man the movie for what it was but to do the book justice they should do it again as a movie.


Of course the hero flying a plane into a building while holding onto his guts is not what the typical viewer wants to see in a post 9/11 world.
 
2012-03-10 02:07:37 PM

rikkards: Of course the hero flying a plane into a building while holding onto his guts is not what the typical viewer wants to see in a post 9/11 world.


The typical viewer should get kicked in the balls for a lot of other things, too.
 
2012-03-10 02:07:42 PM

mekki: coco ebert: The Great Gatsby sucks, in whatever medium.

The plot and characters suck but, boy, did Fitzgerald have a way with words. It would be like if Leonardo only did hotel paintings. Boy, could he paint but...hotel paintings.


"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning-- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

Great use of language about horrible people. Which is sort of the point.
 
2012-03-10 02:08:29 PM

nonvideas: The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...


Did the books do that?
 
2012-03-10 02:10:48 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: mekki: coco ebert: The Great Gatsby sucks, in whatever medium.

The plot and characters suck but, boy, did Fitzgerald have a way with words. It would be like if Leonardo only did hotel paintings. Boy, could he paint but...hotel paintings.

"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther.... And one fine morning-- So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

Great use of language about horrible people. Which is sort of the point.


Some people think it's wonderful to feign boredom at Citizen Kane. Other people can't tell the difference between Citizen Kane and the Great Gatsby.
 
2012-03-10 02:11:15 PM

Fano: Mugato: SithLord: BumpInTheNight: [www.filesfeed.com image 428x638]

Thread over.

Whether he was being snarky or not, I agree. The Passion of the Christ was about a guy getting the shiat beat out of him for three hours, getting nailed to a cross and then emerging from his burial cave for some reason. A weird androgynous creature with a creepy midget child rounds out the cast. A movie should not have required reading to make sense, even if that required reading is the Bible.

On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire". With all the time wasted on walking, one would think they could leave room for explaining major plot points.

The books do not explain. Although you come to realize that the Eagles are basically God stepping in to save the heroes at worthy points, so they are only used when the heroes' backs are completely against the wall. Also, there were flying Nazgul, so a direct flight would have resulted in getting shot down.

They could have included a throwaway line in the Council of Elrond scene where they shoot down the suggestion.


I swear I read in the book that Gandalf alluded when the eagle saved him that in general they do not get involved in anyone else's affairs. This link (new window)kind of points at that as well especially in The Hobbit. If you don't want to read the link basically the gist is:
Why doesn't Frodo ride an eagle?
Because the gods don't want him to.
 
2012-03-10 02:17:02 PM

rikkards: Why doesn't Frodo ride an eagle?
Because the gods don't want him to.


I have said this to every midget who has fondled me.
 
2012-03-10 02:19:38 PM

FeedTheCollapse: The Running Man isn't that bad, but it hasn't aged well at all. It's also completely different from the book, so it's a bit of a moot point to say one is better than the other.


Mugato: On that subject, even though I haven't read The Lord of the Rings, I would submit that. The film never explains WTF the "Grey Havens" is, we never get a real resolution to Christopher Lee's character and I'm assuming the book explains why those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor. And the people I've spoken to who have read the book always complain that there wasn't something called the "scouring of the Shire"

I don't recall the Grey Havens being explained too much in the books, though it's been a while since I've read them. The Scourging of the Shire was included with the extended version of Return of the King, I believe. It was obvious cut for time constraints as it would've added at least another 20 minutes onto the end of the film. I can see why people would complain, but it really would've made ROTK much longer than it already was; hell, in the book the ring is thrown into Mt Doom 3 chapters into the second half of the book.


The Scourging of the Shire wasn't in the extended edition, although it was alluded to when Frodo looks in Galadriel's pool. The extended edition did have the death of Saruman, though; but he dies at Orthanc (still killed by Wormtongue) instead of the Shire. I think it was a slap against Christopher Lee that they didn't include that in the theatrical release.
 
2012-03-10 02:23:00 PM

spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely love the movies, but they're nowhere as awesome as the books.


I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep.
 
2012-03-10 02:28:46 PM

odinsposse: spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely love the movies, but they're nowhere as awesome as the books.

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep.


yeah you need an editor. here's what your edit would look like

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep

I know big well written books bore someone as smart as you, but do refrain from statements regarding who needs an editor.

now go stack some more boxes k?

good.
 
2012-03-10 02:29:32 PM

Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.

The Running Man

is the most correct vision of the future I've ever seen.
A huge media conglomerate controls what people see & hear and make up stories about people that don't follow their doctrine.
For trying to protect the helpless and innocent man is thrown in a bureaucratic prison system.
The populace is distracted by reality TV and gambles their pennies away while multi-millionaires make more & more in a society with rampant unemployment.
 
2012-03-10 02:30:28 PM
What's that movie where the two gay guys are on that mountain?

Oh, right Lord of the Rings. Movie was way better.
 
2012-03-10 02:30:31 PM

Teufelaffe: James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy

Oh look, it's Mr. "I'm way more mature than you guys" again. I'm surprised you didn't mention Camryn Manheim. Oh, wait, is part of the judge's order that you can't mention her online anymore?


oh look it's Mr "I got Nothin!"
 
2012-03-10 02:31:16 PM
I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.
 
2012-03-10 02:32:20 PM

LucklessWonder: James Scameron: The Watchmen was an illustrated book for children not an actual "book".

ftfy

Given the content's level of violence and sexual situations, Watchmen is NOT for children. Sure it's a graphic novel or comic book rather than actual book if you want to view it that way, but it's definitely pitched towards older teens and adults.


Witless Wonder:

I own an autographed copy thanks.
 
2012-03-10 02:33:33 PM

James Scameron: odinsposse: spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.

Absolutely love the movies, but they're nowhere as awesome as the books.

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep.

yeah you need an editor. here's what your edit would look like

I'd argue the opposite. Tolkien needed an editor and the movie gave it to him. It helps immensely. Tom Bombadil and a lot of the back story really don't add anything and slow things down. The only real criticism I have of the movies is their weird addition of elves at places they didn't belong, like Helm's Deep

I know big well written books bore someone as smart as you, but do refrain from statements regarding who needs an editor.

now go stack some more boxes k?

good.


It's kind of sad that you think liking Tolkien makes you smart.
 
2012-03-10 02:33:57 PM
I don't care what the fanboys or the movie critics say, because I liked the Watchmen. The acting is okay (even Malin Akerman) and the plot was fine. I liked the special effects and it kept as true to the comic as possible. I've worse adaptations or "inspired by ...". Green Lanterrn was just cheesy, as well as the first two Punisher films although Thomas Jane was okay in the second one.
 
2012-03-10 02:36:26 PM

sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.


when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge
 
2012-03-10 02:38:19 PM
A much better/harder-to-compile list would be movies that were better than the book
 
2012-03-10 02:38:25 PM

skinink: I don't care what the fanboys or the movie critics say, because I liked the Watchmen. The acting is okay (even Malin Akerman) and the plot was fine. I liked the special effects and it kept as true to the comic as possible. I've worse adaptations or "inspired by ...". Green Lanterrn was just cheesy, as well as the first two Punisher films although Thomas Jane was okay in the second one.


I liked it too. Why "even Malin Ackerman?" What's she ever done wrong?
 
2012-03-10 02:38:37 PM
I don't know that it's possible to be worst than Prozac Nation.
 
2012-03-10 02:38:46 PM

odinsposse: James Scameron: odinsposse: spacebar: List fails without The Lord of the Rings.


It's kind of sad that you think liking Tolkien makes you smart.


naw, your weak comeback is what is sad.
 
2012-03-10 02:41:01 PM

James Scameron: sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.

when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge


The "whinge" really crests with your posts, I have to admit.

/what a minge
 
2012-03-10 02:43:00 PM

hogans: LeroyBourne: No Country for Old Men
/yeah I said it. the book is so much more balanced.

The lack of proper punctuation bothered the hell out of me. Since the film followed the book reasonably closely, I'd still give the nod to the book.


If the punctuation bugged you, don't go near Blood Meridian; it was very difficult to get through with all the characters and not knowing who the hell is saying what. And I heard they're making a movie on it.
/kinda excited
 
2012-03-10 02:44:11 PM
Disagree:
Dune, Running Man

Both are stylish takes on the original material. You have to buy into the director's style to like them. If you don't then they'll never work.

Starship Troopers was similar in that regard. It left a lot out from the book, but stylishly captured some of the books themes.
 
2012-03-10 02:45:41 PM
STUPID GUY: why couldn't those eagles couldn't just fly the Hobbits to Mordor?

Dear JRR,

We were all sitting around wondering why classic tales take so long. We are starting from a really stupid premise and then arguing that as our central point.

Being that none of us are intelligent or cultured enough to know what language, writing or reading is about, maybe you could fill us in.

Thanks,
Mr. Stupid

p.s.

do you have a facebook?
 
2012-03-10 02:47:12 PM

thamike: nonvideas: The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...

Did the books do that?


Yep. Here's a sample from The Girl Who Played with Fire:

She drove to IKEA at Kungens Kurva and spent three hours browsing through the merchandise, writing down the item numbers she needed. She made a few quick decisions.
She bought two KARLANDA sofas with sand coloured upholstery, five POÄNG armchairs, two round side tables of clear lacquered birch, a SVANSBO coffee table, and several LACK occasional tables. From the storage department she ordered two IVAR combination storage units and two BONDE bookshelves, a TV stand, and a MAGIKER unit with doors. She settled on a PAX NEXUS three-door wardrobe and two small MALM bureaus.

She spent a long time selecting a bed, and decided on a HEMNES bed from with mattress and bedside table. To be on the safe side, she also bought a LILLEHAMMER bed to put in the spare room. She didn't plan on having an guests, but since she had a guest room she might as well furnish it.

The bathroom in her new apartment was already equipped with a medicine cabinet, towel storage, and a washing machine the previous owners had left behind. All she had to buy was a cheap laundry basket.

What she did need, though, was kitchen furniture. After some thought she decided on a ROSFORS kitchen table of solid beechwood with a tabletop of tempered glass and four colourful kitchen chairs.

She also needed furniture for her office. She looked at some improbable "work stations: with ingenious cabinets for storing computers and keyboards. In the end she shook her head and ordered an ordinary desk, the GALANT, in beech veneer with an angled top and rounded corners, and a large filing cabinet. She took a long time choosing an office chair - in which she would no doubt spend many hours-and chose one of the most expensive options, the VERKSAM.
She made her way through the entire warehouse and bought a good supply of sheets, pillowcases, hand towels, duvets, blankets, pillows, a starter pack of stainless steel cutlery, some crockery, pots and pans, cutting boards, three big rug, several work lamps, and a huge quantity of office supplies - folders, file boxes, wastepaper baskets, storage boxes, and the like.
 
2012-03-10 02:50:24 PM

nonvideas: thamike: nonvideas: The movie didn't go through detailed descriptions of the characters' Apple products and Ikea furniture...

Did the books do that?

Yep. Here's a sample from The Girl Who Played with Fire:

She drove to IKEA at Kungens Kurva and spent three hours browsing through the merchandise, writing down the item numbers she needed. She made a few quick decisions.
She bought two KARLANDA sofas with sand coloured upholstery, five POÄNG armchairs, two round side tables of clear lacquered birch, a SVANSBO coffee table, and several LACK occasional tables. From the storage department she ordered two IVAR combination storage units and two BONDE bookshelves, a TV stand, and a MAGIKER unit with doors. She settled on a PAX NEXUS three-door wardrobe and two small MALM bureaus.

She spent a long time selecting a bed, and decided on a HEMNES bed from with mattress and bedside table. To be on the safe side, she also bought a LILLEHAMMER bed to put in the spare room. She didn't plan on having an guests, but since she had a guest room she might as well furnish it.

The bathroom in her new apartment was already equipped with a medicine cabinet, towel storage, and a washing machine the previous owners had left behind. All she had to buy was a cheap laundry basket.

What she did need, though, was kitchen furniture. After some thought she decided on a ROSFORS kitchen table of solid beechwood with a tabletop of tempered glass and four colourful kitchen chairs.

She also needed furniture for her office. She looked at some improbable "work stations: with ingenious cabinets for storing computers and keyboards. In the end she shook her head and ordered an ordinary desk, the GALANT, in beech veneer with an angled top and rounded corners, and a large filing cabinet. She took a long time choosing an office chair - in which she would no doubt spend many hours-and chose one of the most expensive options, the VERKSAM.
She made her way through the entire warehouse and bought a good supply ...


Sure.
 
2012-03-10 02:51:28 PM

Fano:

The books do not explain. Although you come to realize that the Eagles are basically God stepping in to save the heroes at worthy points, so they are only used when the heroes' backs are completely against the wall. Also, there were flying Nazgul, so a direct flight would have resulted in getting shot down.

They could have included a throwaway line in the Council of Elrond scene where they shoot down the suggestion.


AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAA!

cough..pause..."did i just read that?"

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

while YOU may have "come to realize" that, that's not the case at all and it is explained quite clearly why in the books.

if you knew anything about the author and his views which...(snicker) you do not, you would know how absurd your pronouncement is.

maybe some of you should actually read the books before getting in here and guessing...

/comedy gold
//nazgul haz guns so they be shooting stuff too and i know. i haz internets
 
2012-03-10 02:55:01 PM

mooseyfate: James Scameron: sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.

when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge

The "whinge" really crests with your posts, I have to admit.

/what a minge


weak is what weak posts eh?
 
2012-03-10 02:55:36 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: I think it was a slap against Christopher Lee that they didn't include that in the theatrical release.


eh, the theatrical versions were kind of crap compared with the extended versions.
 
2012-03-10 03:05:34 PM

James Scameron: sparkeyjames: I know it's been mentioned and is not in the article but Jackson actually butchered
Lord of the Rings. I don't mean by just a little bit either. He changed the disposition of
characters and inserted others where they never where in the books.
You should never butcher a classic under the guise of artistic license.
Not looking forward to his butchery being used on the Hobbit.

when you raise a few million and make a few billion, you get to do that.

guys that make a few thousand and lounge around in their gonch on the internetz get to throw in a few armchair passes of the foam football.

so..

peter jackson +1
you and your opinion 0

there could have been worse directors.

but yeah, better to biatch about someone who has done something than say, someone who has done something biatching about you no? lol

/this thread
//full of whinge


Does not make it right though does it?
Just because he makes xxx millions billions whatever does not invalidate my opinion. Many many others
share my view on this. Some (the non book readers) like the way he does his movies others don't. Live with it.
This is a thread that invites opinion and all you've brought to it is the ability to insult everyone here. Good going.
 
2012-03-10 03:21:29 PM

LucklessWonder: kxs401: The book is almost always better. The only exception I've come across is Silence of the Lambs. The movie is much better.

One more exception


Godfather's a weird case. It was actually a (very long) screenplay first. Robert Evans bought it for Paramount, but couldn't get his bosses in New York to greenlight the money to make it. He knew people in publishing, so he told Puzo to rewrite it as a novel, and sold the book. Once the book was a HUGE best-seller, he was able to get the money to shoot the movie.
 
2012-03-10 03:31:25 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Godfather's a weird case. It was actually a (very long) screenplay first. Robert Evans bought it for Paramount, but couldn't get his bosses in New York to greenlight the money to make it. He knew people in publishing, so he told Puzo to rewrite it as a novel, and sold the book. Once the book was a HUGE best-seller, he was able to get the money to shoot the movie.


Puzo wrote the novel in 1969. The script in 1972. It was a novel first.
 
2012-03-10 03:33:41 PM
On the few that I've seen both I pretty much like which ever one I seen first better. bionicjoe: Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.

The Running Man is the most correct vision of the future I've ever seen.
.


I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.
 
2012-03-10 03:37:23 PM

thamike: Free Radical: They missed another one...

[www.moviesonline.ca image 430x580]

Movie was way better than the book.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-03-10 03:38:10 PM

Oldiron_79: On the few that I've seen both I pretty much like which ever one I seen first better. bionicjoe: Earpj: "The Running Man" is a great movie. Perfect when I need something mindless to watch.

The Running Man is the most correct vision of the future I've ever seen.
.

I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.


Think it all depends on where exactly you live, I think the US is headed mostly towards Running Man with a bit of F451, whereas UK is headed more 1984/F451 combo
 
2012-03-10 03:38:22 PM

Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.


Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."
 
2012-03-10 03:40:55 PM

thamike: Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.

Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."


Here's an oldie but a goodie:

We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug.

That was written by Finian O'Toole.

In 1994.
 
2012-03-10 03:41:16 PM

Free Radical: thamike: Free Radical: They missed another one...

[www.moviesonline.ca image 430x580]

Movie was way better than the book.

notsureifserious.jpg


Serious. Enjoy your Cosmic Hedge Animal Park. I'll enjoy my well-made psychological thriller.
 
2012-03-10 03:42:29 PM

odinsposse: Here's an oldie but a goodie:

We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug.

That was written by Finian O'Toole.

In 1994.


I would like to buy you a steak.
 
2012-03-10 03:54:12 PM
thamike: Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.

Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."


odinsposse: thamike: Oldiron_79: I'd say we are a little closer to Fahrenheit 451 than Running Man, Wall sized flat TVs and Rampant political correctness ban and burninate anything that might offend anyone.

Like Huckleberry Finn? I think it's depressing that the same people who burn "offensive" books complain about "political correctness."

Here's an oldie but a goodie:

We have now reached the point where every goon with a grievance, every bitter bigot, merely has to place the prefix, 'I know this is not politically correct, but...' in front of the usual string of insults in order to be not just safe from criticism, but actually a card, a lad, even a hero. Conversely, to talk about poverty and inequality, to draw attention to the reality that discrimination and injustice are still facts of life, is to commit the sin of political correctness. Anti-PC has become the latest cover for creeps. It is a godsend for every curmudgeon and crank, from fascists to the merely smug.

That was written by Finian O'Toole.

In 1994.


Calling everyone that doesn't like political correctness a Fascist with no good basis for doing so...... Yet more proof of Godwin's law.

Well its obvious that you guys are good goose stepping pinheads that will do anything your overlords tell you to as long as they accuse whomever they want to you attack of being racist.
 
2012-03-10 03:56:21 PM

Oldiron_79: Calling everyone that doesn't like political correctness a Fascist with no good basis for doing so


Nope. Try reading it again.
 
2012-03-10 04:04:01 PM
I have yet to see a movie version that is better than the book. Why? Because when I read a book, I make up my OWN movie version in my head. I tend to visualize as I read. I "hear" the characters speak their dialogue as I read the text. Someone attempting to put the same book onto a movie screen is going to put THEIR version up there, not mine. And mine is always better, more real, more intense. The only thing I lack is a John Williams score, which I admit is kind of a bummer. (Funny thing, though- I've found that when I re-read LOTR, I mentally insert the John Williams score into the action.)

Until Hollywood can produce big-screen versions of MY interpretations of books, THEIR adaptations will never live up to a book I've read.
 
2012-03-10 04:10:13 PM

tillerman35: I have yet to see a movie version that is better than the book. Why? Because when I read a book, I make up my OWN movie version in my head. I tend to visualize as I read. I "hear" the characters speak their dialogue as I read the text. Someone attempting to put the same book onto a movie screen is going to put THEIR version up there, not mine. And mine is always better, more real, more intense. The only thing I lack is a John Williams score, which I admit is kind of a bummer. (Funny thing, though- I've found that when I re-read LOTR, I mentally insert the John Williams score into the action.)

Until Hollywood can produce big-screen versions of MY interpretations of books, THEIR adaptations will never live up to a book I've read.


though I will agree that the subject of TFA was going to be awfully broad, I think I would be more interested in movies that surpass the book version or are dramatically different enough from the source material to be its own separate entity.
 
2012-03-10 04:31:06 PM

Oldiron_79: Calling everyone that doesn't like political correctness a Fascist with no good basis for doing so...... Yet more proof of Godwin's law.


If you had any idea what "Godwin's Law" is, you would know that you just faceplanted into it.
 
2012-03-10 04:36:05 PM
Watchmen is a Time Warner property as is EW. That's why it's not on the list.
 
Displayed 50 of 196 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report