jeez, i'm finding myself all over the map on this. first i'll say, i still think you're cheating yourself on this one, scott. bc, i don't know about all cases, but in this case, the books are such a great experience on their own that it seems sad to wait for the movie and then have your concepts of it all shaped by someone else's take on it. but there's no real arguing to do bc you've stated that it's your particular thing to want to see the movie first.
and what does is say about a movie if it can be ruined by reading the story that inspired it?
and, it's not. the hp movie was fun. just nowhere as good as the book.
i think the principle here is that something really good won't be ruined by something else. so, since people frequently make movies out of books that are good, the books stand up - even when the movies stink. people don't tend to write books based on movies, so that's not really a helpful thought. sometimes the movie is better than the book (e.m. forster's maurice comes to mind) but...
ok, totally lost track of my thoughts. i actually saw fotr before reading it... and it worked really well for me that way. loved them both. but yes, my experience of the books from that point on were much indebted to peter jackson and his take on it all.
so... like i said, no real arguing to do. since you've basically said, "this is how i like it." ok. but i still think you're missing out. and it stinks having to be all careful about spoilers.
and, having already seen the movie, have you now read the first book?
Re: My Harry Potter stance
Date: 2002-07-09 06:15 pm (UTC)and what does is say about a movie if it can be ruined by reading the story that inspired it?
and, it's not. the hp movie was fun. just nowhere as good as the book.
i think the principle here is that something really good won't be ruined by something else. so, since people frequently make movies out of books that are good, the books stand up - even when the movies stink. people don't tend to write books based on movies, so that's not really a helpful thought. sometimes the movie is better than the book (e.m. forster's maurice comes to mind) but...
ok, totally lost track of my thoughts. i actually saw fotr before reading it... and it worked really well for me that way. loved them both. but yes, my experience of the books from that point on were much indebted to peter jackson and his take on it all.
so... like i said, no real arguing to do. since you've basically said, "this is how i like it." ok. but i still think you're missing out. and it stinks having to be all careful about spoilers.
and, having already seen the movie, have you now read the first book?