Nah, the road is better book than the movie. The movie had to cut some bits out for censorship reasons. The book has way more dark and horrific moments, and shows you a bit more how fricked up people were in that scenario. Just saying in the movie "they are canibals" is like a quickness version. The books give more detail how fricked people were (e.g. having the cannibal groups patrol around with all their women pregnant. Then later on you see one of the cannibal camps and they have a fireplace with a charred baby they were supposedly going to eat).
However there are also more hopeful moments in the book too. There's more of a religious element. The ending is more hopeful than the movies.
>However there are also more hopeful moments in the book too. There's more of a religious element. The ending is more hopeful than the movies.
Ski Parka is a hallucination of the Father.
It's not for everyone but I had a magical time reading that back in 2000. It was during my first real job and it made feel like I was visiting a different world. I would basically run home after work just to keep reading it. Like that kid in Never Ending Story. I still own them books to this day. The movies I love just as much but in it's own different way. I treasure both works.
Books have the potential to always be better because you can do more with a story in a book without being limited to time or the medium. With Books you can create any kind of world.
Not the same with movies. Often those "any kind of worlds" end up looking cringey on screen or camp.
This Anon is a witless moron who can't even manage to string 3 words together for a post. We'll call him Shemp.
Don't be a Shemp: Read Books! Words are your friends.
Thanks for reading.
Film is very limited with what it can express. Nothing internal, nothing peripheral. Just the movement of actors on screen. Not only that, but the images are generally just boring shots of the real world. I hate to say it but animation is the ideal visual storytelling medium. Unfortunately there is never a glimpse into a character's internal world with animation either. So what is the overall ideal storytelling medium? It would have to be literature with visual aspects added to it, but comic books are generally pretty schlocky.
For something which blurs the line between genre fiction and literary fiction, like LOTR, I guess it's enough to look up artist depictions of scenery. The movies did a pretty good job with the imagery actually, but again, it was very limited. You don't see that much of Rivendell or any of the other places for example. There's not enough runtime to fully explore it like the books do. You can pretty much express or describe anything in a book. Definitely not with a movie.
Only kino masters like kubrick or nolan can actually make films better than the books counterparts (prestige and shining are big examples of this).
Most directors, like villehack should instead just follow the book like gospel.
But I can conceptualize a certain segment of the population being too dumb and ruined by dopamine loops to read for pleasure, leaving them with no way to enjoy a story unless it is a movie
Books Better than film
Dune
LOTR
Films better than books
The Prestige
No Country for old men.
>No Country for old men
Anything written by Corm*c McC*rthy is better as film
Nah, the road is better book than the movie. The movie had to cut some bits out for censorship reasons. The book has way more dark and horrific moments, and shows you a bit more how fricked up people were in that scenario. Just saying in the movie "they are canibals" is like a quickness version. The books give more detail how fricked people were (e.g. having the cannibal groups patrol around with all their women pregnant. Then later on you see one of the cannibal camps and they have a fireplace with a charred baby they were supposedly going to eat).
However there are also more hopeful moments in the book too. There's more of a religious element. The ending is more hopeful than the movies.
>The Road
>Hopeful ending
Yes. His dad dies but he gets taken in by another family to look after him.
I don't understand how anyone can think that's what happens.
>B-but Cormac... le wrote about his son!
Kek
>However there are also more hopeful moments in the book too. There's more of a religious element. The ending is more hopeful than the movies.
Ski Parka is a hallucination of the Father.
This just outs yourself as illiterate.
Yes, I read Sanderson and Harry Potter. I judge all book's quality based on them.
>books for tiktok ADHD zoomers
>LOTR
No fricking way. I got so bored trying to read that.
And I fell asleep during hackson's flicks.
The Hobbit is the good one
It's not for everyone but I had a magical time reading that back in 2000. It was during my first real job and it made feel like I was visiting a different world. I would basically run home after work just to keep reading it. Like that kid in Never Ending Story. I still own them books to this day. The movies I love just as much but in it's own different way. I treasure both works.
Fight club
The Road
>Films better than books
Fight Club
I thought the LOTR films were good but the books bored me to tears
Books are always better than films. Films can be art but they're inferior in every way to literature.
Brainlet take.
Books have the potential to always be better because you can do more with a story in a book without being limited to time or the medium. With Books you can create any kind of world.
Not the same with movies. Often those "any kind of worlds" end up looking cringey on screen or camp.
>inferior
How is one art form inferior to another?
This Anon is correct. We'll call him Chad.
This Anon is a witless moron who can't even manage to string 3 words together for a post. We'll call him Shemp.
Don't be a Shemp: Read Books! Words are your friends.
Thanks for reading.
Shemp was an underrated Stooge
Books have no visuals or sounds. Really boring tbh
AHEM AHEM
Movie adaptations will always be worse because they’ll leave things out or add stupid shit to pad the runtime
Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? is superior in every way to Blade Runner. Blade Runner fricks up the entire point of the novel.
True, it's the book that switched me from a film guy to a book guy.
>Eragon
Can't decide which is worse, book or film. Probably the film.
Film is very limited with what it can express. Nothing internal, nothing peripheral. Just the movement of actors on screen. Not only that, but the images are generally just boring shots of the real world. I hate to say it but animation is the ideal visual storytelling medium. Unfortunately there is never a glimpse into a character's internal world with animation either. So what is the overall ideal storytelling medium? It would have to be literature with visual aspects added to it, but comic books are generally pretty schlocky.
For something which blurs the line between genre fiction and literary fiction, like LOTR, I guess it's enough to look up artist depictions of scenery. The movies did a pretty good job with the imagery actually, but again, it was very limited. You don't see that much of Rivendell or any of the other places for example. There's not enough runtime to fully explore it like the books do. You can pretty much express or describe anything in a book. Definitely not with a movie.
Only kino masters like kubrick or nolan can actually make films better than the books counterparts (prestige and shining are big examples of this).
Most directors, like villehack should instead just follow the book like gospel.
>DUDE TEXT ON A PAGE IS SUPERIOR TO ACTUALLY MAKING THINGS LMAO
Book readers never achieve anything.
It's ok if your brain can't produce images anon. Not everyone has that ability. Enjoy your movies friend
It just means your comprehension skills are shit.
Fully understood, the book will always be better
But I can conceptualize a certain segment of the population being too dumb and ruined by dopamine loops to read for pleasure, leaving them with no way to enjoy a story unless it is a movie
You can argue how the book Prestige or slop like Bourne books are superior to their film counterparts.
I can't, I havent read them
Thought so.p
>why is the movie bad?
>because the characters don't look or sound like how I imagined them
>You can picture things in your head, that's so much better
The people who say movies are better that ‘text on paper’ are the people who can’t visualize an apple.