I'm just reading The Night Manager by John Le Carre, and what a cracking read it is too. A very good TV series a few months back, but the book is so much deeper, darker, and more complex. On a similar note, having thoroughly enjoyed the two series of Bosch on Amazon TV, I have just finished the whole collection of about 20+ novels by Michael Connelly on which the series were based. I think someone on here (sorry, can't remember who!) recommended them, so thank you very much whoever you were! While I would generally agree with your thesis that it's always better to watch before reading, there are one or two exceptions to the rule. I must have read Lord of the Rings about 50 times before the movies came out, but despite the many shortcomings of the films, I enjoyed them all, and the books are made even more enjoyable by having firmer imagery to accompany ones trading. I also read all of the Game of Thrones books before the TV series were screened, and having foreknowledge of the characters and complex plot lines helped me follow the TV shows much more easily.
Yeah, I read both The Hobbit and LOTR, and The Silmarillion, loads of times. Much as I really liked the films, for me they still weren't as good as the books. And, in my opinion, nor as good as the two radio series of The Hobbit and LOTR, from the late 60's and early 80's respectively. But neither the radio series nor the films had Tom Bombadil in them, and that was the real shame. What a character. But it's not always the case that an original book remains better than a story told in another medium. It just happens so in the majority of cases, in my opinion. So if possible, watch first, perhaps listen, then read. And, as you say, you get your imagery thrown in for free from the film.
Film is a wonderful medium and I have enjoyed many, many films.You can lose yourself in a film, but inevitably you are receiving one persons view of the book. Film does work very well with larger than life subjects, such as LOTR. It is wonderful to see what you have only imagined. However, you can lose yourself in a book and make your own interpretation. I saw the film The Help recently (about the awful power that white people had over the lives of black people in Mississippi in the sixties, but with a lot of humour), when low and behold, my reading group selected the book. Wasn't sure I'd read it, but I have. And I love the book, just as I enjoyed the film, but I like the book more as there are more nuances. One character in the film, who is a racist (but a child of dreadful times), has redeeming features in the book being the best friend of the main white character. In the film, you wondered why the heroine bothered with her. Books can give you more depth.
That's why I put Bzzzzz.. And don't forget the John Collins one, where she got her head stuck in the piece of wooden art.
I have read the Hobbit (Hopefully going to see the filmset in November) I have the book on Lord of the Rings.....but strangely am a bit reluctant to read it as I enjoyed the film trilogy so much. I gather there is two films out in the Hobbit series but not sure if I would enjoy either as I enjoyed the book so much. Difficult decision for me..........
The Hobbit films (there are 3!) are exciting, spectacular, and vaguely like the book. So much extra stuff has been shoved in to make up 3 long films that it's almost unrecognisable from the children's book I fell in love with when I was 10. On the other hand, please, please, please read Lord of the Rings, one of the greatest stories ever told. I promise you will love it Beddy.
Michael Crichton books. Even when he wrote a book with no immediate prospect of a screenplay coming out of it, one knew he'd written the thing with that in mind. Now whether any of his books have made properly good films is another matter.
The Hobbit films are OK. Very good visualisation, but way over long. And far too serious, of course. But Jackson had blown it by then by making such a spectacle of the LOTR films, so he couldn't go back to the child's book that was The Hobbit. He had to construct something with as much seriousness and gravitas as the LOTR. The Hobbit films really ought to have been a bit more like this: It's OK, Beddy. You can watch this.
Jo Konta beats world number 7 Belinda Bencic in less than an hour. She looks in fantastic form. The only way Bencic was going to live with her was if they split the rent on a flat. Broady lost in 2 sets last night to the 4th seed, but believe me that didn't reflect the game...her opponent was mighty relieved to win. Murray and Evans went through yesterday. Good time for British tennis.
The return of Goodnight Sweetheart tonight on BBC One of my favourite all time sitcoms (I'm weird I know). The first 10 mins I thought oh no, this is crap, but I was chuckling out loud by the end. Anyone who saw the late 80s version, I would watch it.
I really enjoyed the series with Nicholas Lyndhurst in the early 90's but was unaware of an 80's version. I'll give it a watch though, cheers.
Jeez, I couldn't stand that show, ever. It wasn't a hatred, more a numbness. I've had the misfortune to sit through a couple of episodes and it seemed to be manifestly dumbed down for its audience. The concept was fine - time shifting comedy and the awkward juxtapositions that were thrown up. The realisation of that fell incredibly short. The imaginatively hilarious Red Dwarf showed what you could do with time shifting comedy in many of its episodes. And even RD was uneven while it searched for comedy gold. Thing was though, it tried it regularly found it.
I see Kyle Edmund is through to the 4th round of the US Open where he'll face Djokovic. Fair play to him, great result for him to beat Isner.
