The new one with Knightly?Scabadus said:Pride and Prejudice. I'll wait for your double take to subside... there we go. Perhaps a surprising choice, but let me explain: when I fell asleep reading the book (English coursework, I had to) I had to pick up from where I left off. When I gave up on the book and watched the film to try and get the story and also fell asleep watching that, it was over when I woke up. So, simple logic, the less time I had to spend enduring that excuse for classic literature, the better.
Agree. Reading that book was hard work, and the movie excellent.SmartIdiot said:A Clockwork Orange. There was nothing wrong with the book by any means, however the nadsat dialogue was used a lot more and often the plot flow would be broken up by constantly having to flip to the translation section at the back. Whereas watching the film you start to get used to what the different slang words mean after about half an hour. Plus it was directed by Stanley Kubrick so... well it speaks for itself.
Personally, I read the entire LotR trilogy by the time I was 11. It was REALLY hard, especially with my ADHD, took me forever...about a year. That being said, I found the movies very approachable, faithful to the original narrative, and entertaining. I missed small details, like Tom Bombadill, but I can understand their exclusion from the movies.michiehoward said:holyshit I can believe I haven't got slaughtered about my opinion of the LotR, and that people actually agree yahhhh! lmao
I was going to say something of the sorts. Also, Great Expectations. Our class just had to kill time after exams, so we were advised to try these books, and we watched the movies. I read 25 pages of Great Expectations, refused to pick up Pride And Prejudice. We had to watch both the movies, and it was much easier to multi-task, i.e. Laugh at the emo Mr Darcy guy with my friends...Scabadus said:Pride and Prejudice. I'll wait for your double take to subside... there we go. Perhaps a surprising choice, but let me explain: when I fell asleep reading the book (English coursework, I had to) I had to pick up from where I left off. When I gave up on the book and watched the film to try and get the story and also fell asleep watching that, it was over when I woke up. So, simple logic, the less time I had to spend enduring that excuse for classic literature, the better.
I did read it when I was about 11 or something, and I freaking loved it. Especially the nitty gritty violence and gore.PhiMed said:I would recommend reading it again. The reason you didn't enjoy it as a child is because, unlike the movie, it isn't for kids. None of Crichton's stuff is for kids, for that matter.mrdotcom1 said:I think Jurassic Park was a way better movie than the book was. I remember trying to read it when I was a kid and thought it was not fun to read it.