The Jim Butcher Files: Dresden . Codex Alera . Cinder Spires & More

[alansplace]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

That is very cool, Alan!

i kinda' thought so too

[carpetmojo]

I'm midway through the first, and quite enjoying it.

[Pookeysgirl]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I'm midway through the first, and quite enjoying it.

I just finished the first book and absolutely loved it! I haven't been this impressed with a book in a long time. I can't wait to get started on the second

[alansplace]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I'm midway through the first, and quite enjoying it.

Originally Posted by Pookeysgirl

I just finished the first book and absolutely loved it! I haven't been this impressed with a book in a long time. I can't wait to get started on the second

i discovered the dresden files books because i had watched cable's syfy channel series, the dresden files and was unhappy because of the cancellation after only one season.

i had noticed in the screen credits that the series was based on the novels by jim butcher. so i went and bought a kindle copy of storm front and it was so different and also better than the episode (episode 8, in fact was made as a 2-hour pilot and then not shown [as a pilot] and later cut into an episode.) of the tv series that afterward i just kept reading them in book order till i ran out of books.

then i began impatiently waiting for new ones to come out once a year. and in fact, episode 8 was the only tv episode to:

1. be titled the same as one of the novels.
2. to attempt to follow any of the different novel's story lines.

which was, imho, a good thing. i liked the tv series and then i liked the books as well. jim butcher like the series too, and had almost no part or role in its production. he got a tour of the prouction in toronto and a cameo in the episode they were filming at the time. the tour was filmed and you can see it here.

so, i hope you folks continue enjoying storm front (oops, one of you already finished it) and end up reading and enjoying them all.

[treadlightly]

Obviously you discovered the TV version of the Dresden Files first, but for other books that you have read, do you typically watch the TV/movie version? The Hollows just got picked up for TV but I don't know if I would ever want to watch it. For some reason the transition to screen ruins the magic for me.

[alansplace]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

Obviously you discovered the TV version of the Dresden Files first, but for other books that you have read, do you typically watch the TV/movie version? The Hollows just got picked up for TV but I don't know if I would ever want to watch it. For some reason the transition to screen ruins the magic for me.

i don't do anything typically. the enjoyment factor of some books are ruined by seeing the movie first and visa versa. so i have no rules that i follow.

i'd certainly try the hollows and see what it's like.

i saw several seasons of true blood and enjoyed them a lot, then i read the first of charlaine harris' sookie stackhouse (southern vampire) novels. i enjoyed it, but i've not yet been interested enough to obtain and read another one.

the same with dexter as with sookie.

i think that you need to have read a harry potter book to be able to understand a lot of what goes on in the movie version of that book. i highly enjoy both.

i read the first percy jackson book, then watched the movie. i didn't like either one.

then there's movies based on heinlein novels, yikes! they have traditionally been so far removed from the books that they are mostly unrecognizable. puppt masters was awful (imho) but starship troopers was, to me, quite enjoyable, however neither were at all faithful to the source.

good grief, i could go on forever, better cut this short

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

Obviously you discovered the TV version of the Dresden Files first, but for other books that you have read, do you typically watch the TV/movie version? The Hollows just got picked up for TV but I don't know if I would ever want to watch it. For some reason the transition to screen ruins the magic for me.

Originally Posted by alansplace

i don't do anything typically. the enjoyment factor of some books are ruined by seeing the movie first and visa versa. so i have no rules that i follow.

i'd certainly try the hollows and see what it's like.

i saw several seasons of true blood and enjoyed them a lot, then i read the first of charlaine harris' sookie stackhouse (southern vampire) novels. i enjoyed it, but i've not yet been interested enough to obtain and read another one.

the same with dexter as with sookie.

i think that you need to have read a harry potter book to be able to understand a lot of what goes on in the movie version of that book. i highly enjoy both.

i read the first percy jackson book, then watched the movie. i didn't like either one.

then there's movies based on heinlein novels, yikes! they have traditionally been so far removed from the books that they are mostly unrecognizable. puppt masters was awful (imho) but starship troopers was, to me, quite enjoyable, however neither were at all faithful to the source.

good grief, i could go on forever, better cut this short

@Alan: No need to cut your response short!

I've found that I usually prefer to read the books before seeing the movie or watching the show, although I don't mind if it happens the other way around.
The only drawback to video first is that I automatically picture the characters the way they are on screen, once I start reading the books, instead of allowing my imagination to "build" them.

My experiences are a little different from Alan's.

1. The new Hollows show idea scares me! Not, becuase its going to TV, but because the CW is picking it up. They lean towards teenage-angst, instead of "adult".
That being said I'd probably watch at least one or two episodes to see what they've done.

2. I really like both the Southern Vampires/Sookie Stackhouse series and True Blood. I read the books (1 - 7 or 8) before watching the show. After getting over the shock of season 2, I learned to compartmentalize the show from the novels, allowing me to enjoy both individually.

3. Hubby and I just tried Dexter (the TV show) this past summer via Netflix. Unfortunately, they only offered the first 2 seasons as insta-watch so we were not able to catch up to the latest season. We didn't know there were novels until recently. I do not know if I'm interested enough to read them.

4. I agree about the Harry Potter books being a "must read" before the movies, but I did not enjoy the movies as much as I thought I would. The first one was really cute, but the rest seemed to lose something along the way. I stopped watching after Goblet of Fire.

5. I have neither read Percy Jackson (although I plan to), nor have I watched the movie (I might look for it after I read the books).

6. I'm not familiar with Heinlein's work other than the two movies mentioned. I have no interest in seeing or reading either of them.

[treadlightly]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

The only drawback to video first is that I automatically picture the characters the way they are on screen, once I start reading the books, instead of allowing my imagination to "build" them.

That's exactly it right there. I want my own imagination to build the world and shape the characters in it. Even if I see the movie after I read the book, my mind morphs my imaginary world to something closer to the screen version. And special effects, especially with fantasy, can sometimes not be smoothly animated. I'm still deciding whether I want to watch the Harry Potter movies or not. Not to mention that I spend most of my spare time reading instead of in front of the tube.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by treadlightly

That's exactly it right there. I want my own imagination to build the world and shape the characters in it. Even if I see the movie after I read the book, my mind morphs my imaginary world to something closer to the screen version. And special effects, especially with fantasy, can sometimes not be smoothly animated. I'm still deciding whether I want to watch the Harry Potter movies or not. Not to mention that I spend most of my spare time reading instead of in front of the tube.

I definitely did the imaginary vs screen morphing with the Potter movies, but in a good way. There wasn't that big of a leap. I think the characters were cast perfectly (except for Harry's Aunt).
What was lost, was the fullness and richness of the story. So many missing details, especially as the standard length of the movies could not keep up with the increasing length of the books. The school looked wonderful, Diagon Alley was fantastic, the magic was fun, but the depth of the story was missing.

I've heard that they did a fabulous job with Deathly Hollows and it has been suggested that I try to watch the whole thing back to back, but I don't think my heart is into it.

[alansplace]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I definitely did the imaginary vs screen morphing with the Potter movies, but in a good way. There wasn't that big of a leap. I think the characters were cast perfectly (except for Harry's Aunt).
What was lost, was the fullness and richness of the story. So many missing details, especially as the standard length of the movies could not keep up with the increasing length of the books. The school looked wonderful, Diagon Alley was fantastic, the magic was fun, but the depth of the story was missing.

I've heard that they did a fabulous job with Deathly Hollows and it has been suggested that I try to watch the whole thing back to back, but I don't think my heart is into it.

i liked the potter cover art and even though i saw all the movies, i still picture harry looking like a human form of the cover art images (which were not very photo-realistic) and i especially liked his hair. yep, i think the deathly hallows duo is pretty well done, if i were younger i'd probably say it was awesome

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by alansplace

while i was reading second star, the first book in the trilogy, i got so enthralled with the experience that i sent this comment to dana stabenow about it in a pm on goodreads:



after that i immediately purchased the other two books in the trilogy from here using the 'Buy direct from me' link. in the case of the first book it's offered for free and you can use the 'Download FREE from Stabenow.com' link. they are inexpensive ($4.99) and you get both mobi and epub versions that are uncontaminated by drm. anyway, so next i read handful of stars and then immediately began reading red planet run, the last book of the trilogy which i finished this morning. i really hated being done and having to leave the world...er...solar system of star svensdotter.

i highly recommend this trilogy and the kate shugak series as well

Dana is amazing. I'm in her fan club, the Danamaniacs. (Yes, I do read stuff besides urban fantasy and cozies ). Kate Shugak is one of my all time favorites. Did you catch the Kate short in the new Laurie R. King anthology, A Study in Sherlock?

As for actors for Dresden: I can't picture Kristen Bell as being anyone good anymore, not after watching her be so evil in Heroes. So she's right out as Karrin Murphy for me. I do think you've nailed Thomas, though!

As I believe I've mentioned, I found the all-too-short-lived Sci Fi series first, so I will forever see Harry as the actor that played him in that, the one that looks similar to your avatar, Alansplace.

[alansplace]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

Dana is amazing. I'm in her fan club, the Danamaniacs. (Yes, I do read stuff besides urban fantasy and cozies ). Kate Shugak is one of my all time favorites. Did you catch the Kate short in the new Laurie R. King anthology, A Study in Sherlock?

danamaniacs! i like the name. nope never before heard of a study in sherlock

Originally Posted by phenomshel

As for actors for Dresden: I can't picture Kristen Bell as being anyone good anymore, not after watching her be so evil in Heroes. So she's right out as Karrin Murphy for me. I do think you've nailed Thomas, though!

well, how about picturing her as veronica mars, or her very short role in deadwood

Originally Posted by phenomshel

As I believe I've mentioned, I found the all-too-short-lived Sci Fi series first, so I will forever see Harry as the actor that played him in that, the one that looks similar to your avatar, Alansplace.

so did i, but i don't allow my imagination (maybe my mind/imagination is its own master) to be swayed by tv casting or cover art, though i appreciate those art forms for themselves

[alansplace]

not long ago the sticky thread about new free amazon kindle offerings disappeared (a really bad idea). there was a discussion of it somewhere and during that some folks posted a/some link[s] of website[s] that have that info and update it daily. anyone know what that/those link[s] might be as i cannot find it/them

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I definitely did the imaginary vs screen morphing with the Potter movies, but in a good way. There wasn't that big of a leap. I think the characters were cast perfectly (except for Harry's Aunt).
What was lost, was the fullness and richness of the story. So many missing details, especially as the standard length of the movies could not keep up with the increasing length of the books. The school looked wonderful, Diagon Alley was fantastic, the magic was fun, but the depth of the story was missing

I think the Potter movies were a triumph, as were the books - but it helps if you treat them as different animals - but from the same "root" as it were.
I felt quite lucky to have "grown-up" alongside my son, from I think 5 when he started them, with J'P's creation.
And those experiences weren't diminished in any way by the films - we also saw the majority of those together.
They were a different slant - although I do agree about the casting, which I couldn't fault.
And, being old enough to have found Tolkien well before it became a cult, I found the wonderful films satisfying in exactly the same way - apart from my opinion that the Hobbits were way too "Hollywood" photogenic !

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by alansplace

not long ago the sticky thread about new free amazon kindle offerings disappeared (a really bad idea). there was a discussion of it somewhere and during that some folks posted a/some link[s] of website[s] that have that info and update it daily. anyone know what that/those link[s] might be as i cannot find it/them

The two that I use are:

Pixel of Ink (my primary source)

Books on The Knob

Both are also available via Facebook.

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I think the Potter movies were a triumph, as were the books - but it helps if you treat them as different animals - but from the same "root" as it were.
I felt quite lucky to have "grown-up" alongside my son, from I think 5 when he started them, with J'P's creation.
And those experiences weren't diminished in any way by the films - we also saw the majority of those together.
They were a different slant - although I do agree about the casting, which I couldn't fault.
And, being old enough to have found Tolkien well before it became a cult, I found the wonderful films satisfying in exactly the same way - apart from my opinion that the Hobbits were way too "Hollywood" photogenic !

I found the LoTR movies to be beautiful, and very well cast. I watched purely for cinematics instead of the story. It was a lot of fun when I recognized specific scenes from the book. It was a little confusing when things seemed out of order, but that did not diminish the movies for me.

It is awesome that you could share HP with your son. My children are the perfect ages right now, but none of them are all that interested.