Quote:
Originally Posted by elemenoP
I have to disagree on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book three times, I loved it so much, and then saw the movie many years later. It is a very good movie, certainly Nicholson is phenomenal. I appreciate that the movie stands on its own as a great movie. But the book is still one of my very favorite books, with a different message from the movie.
Which leads me to a theory. For those who said the movie was better than the book, which did you see/read first, the book or the movie? I'm thinking you can only like the movie best if you saw the movie first. Agree, disagree?
eP
|
Nope. I had read 'The Black Stallion' probably a dozen times as a kid years before I saw the movie. I still think the movie is far, far superior.
I think whichever you experience first might prejudice you a bit, but if your judgment is still intact, you ought to be able to judge each on its own merits.
On the other hand, I've yet to see a film version of 'Little Women' that even began to do the book justice, although the TV version starring Susan Dey came by far the closest.
LOTR is kind of a Rorschach test - some people LOVE the books, some are completely bored by them. Some of the same people who dislike the books might love the movies, some who love the books might hate the movies (although I've met very few of the latter category). Me, I think the movies are awe-inspiring achievements of film, but I still think the book was better because of the level of detail and because Tolkien's philosophy is clearer. Tolkien's writing is quite Victorian in tone - doesn't bother me because I read of lot of Victorian lit anyway, but for those with more 'modern' tastes I can see where they might find it draggy. But then I find much of modern lit *too* stripped down. When there's nothing left but plot, then there's nothing left worth reading, IMHO.