Elysian Shadows

I tried reading Hitchhiker's guide, and it was really, really weird. I took it back after the 1st chapter.

lol it is wierd isnt it....i got to the second chapter and it still was rearly.....strange if you know what i meen....

i think thay should re-write the book and make it less strange...



[/quote]eat more beans!!![quote][/quote]

I'd rather save my pennies to see something good, like the new willy wonka movie.

I saw it Friday and got refund tickets. I wonder what I should see with my refund tickets? I can choose ANY movie EXCEPT Star Wars 3. Don't ask why. Oh well, I wouldn't see that anyway.

I have looked all over for the books, I want to read them SOOO bad. The library didn't have them, but did have the cassettes for the radio version. (yes, they used to broadcast it over the radio. Awesome, huh?)

Basically, the radio version is the book, but rather than "he heard a loud boom and said, 'What was that?'" it would have a large explosion sound affect, and a man's would say, "What was that?" Believe it or not, they were actually very entertaining, lol.

Comparing the movie to the radio version: it was awesome. They took the main lines of the book, but kinda changed the plot to a still awesome way that doesn't overwhelm you with left out details, like Harry Potter does. I'd actually recommend seeing it.

FredDibnah wrote:Not always. Lord of the Rings books are frightfully dull, while the movies are...well, awesome.

I think two reasons that books are usually better are:

1. There's more room to develope the plot

2. You can imagine characters and settings anyway you want to

the only reasons the LOtR books werent as good as the movie are as follows:

1) the guy who wrote them had such a great vocabulary that it was hard to tell what was going on without looking up a crapload of words...and he was english, so they actually USE some of those words

and 2) the books werent so widespread as things like harry potter. they had lived their fame already.

does that make sense?

1st_Movement wrote:

FredDibnah wrote:Not always. Lord of the Rings books are frightfully dull, while the movies are...well, awesome.

I think two reasons that books are usually better are:

1. There's more room to develope the plot

2. You can imagine characters and settings anyway you want to

the only reasons the LOtR books werent as good as the movie are as follows:

1) the guy who wrote them had such a great vocabulary that it was hard to tell what was going on without looking up a crapload of words...and he was english, so they actually USE some of those words

and 2) the books werent so widespread as things like harry potter. they had lived their fame already.

does that make sense?

Uh, actually no, I didn't have trouble with the vocabulary. It wasn't that out of the ordinary. The problem with LOTR is that it's so dang wordy. Kinda like Charles Dickens (see Great Expectations). I just found it extremely redundant.

Are you trying to make a connection between fame and literature? I couldn't care less how popular a book is.

Arce wrote:I saw it Friday and got refund tickets. I wonder what I should see with my refund tickets? I can choose ANY movie EXCEPT Star Wars 3. Don't ask why. Oh well, I wouldn't see that anyway.

I have looked all over for the books, I want to read them SOOO bad. The library didn't have them, but did have the cassettes for the radio version. (yes, they used to broadcast it over the radio. Awesome, huh?)

Basically, the radio version is the book, but rather than "he heard a loud boom and said, 'What was that?'" it would have a large explosion sound affect, and a man's would say, "What was that?" Believe it or not, they were actually very entertaining, lol.

Comparing the movie to the radio version: it was awesome. They took the main lines of the book, but kinda changed the plot to a still awesome way that doesn't overwhelm you with left out details, like Harry Potter does. I'd actually recommend seeing it.

The radio version, books, movie, and tv series (yes there was a tv series) were all supposed to be separate entities. They were all supposed to have differences and similarities. So anyone who cries because it isn't 100% faithful to the books needs to go cry somewhere else--Douglas Adams made 95% of the screenplay, so you can cry to your great, dead, author about all the 'crappy' and 'horrible' changes to it, instead of trying to blame Disney. That's right, it was Adams. The only thing he didn't put in there was the Trillian and Arthur bit.

dude, that movie roked! It was so funny and random.

xB_forlife wrote:dude, that movie roked! It was so funny and random.

Hey um..xbforlife I don't mean to be mean or anything but this topic took place a few months ago. :?

i know. lol, thats my point!

I don't get it. :?