MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote
I didn't suggest anything like that at all.


No need to.



Correct!

That's why I didn'r feel the need to suggest it!


BB 'n RB! who'd a guessed it?


Regards



Donal
--

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Please, puleeasse, do not refer to "highly regarded" screenplay version
of
great works of fiction.

Does that include Wuthering Heights and Treasure of Sierra Madre? I'm
certain
you never read B. Traven either. Did you know that the reclusive writer
took
part in that amazing bit of screenwriting? The incredible Of Mice and Men
is a
near perfect work, in all aspects because it's really not adapted at
all....
You don't seem to mind displaying your ignorance for all to see!
How about Willy Wonka or A Clockwork Orange? Yeah, all shallow efforts!
Donal...you've managed to swallow the entire shoe store this time. Still
worse,
you never read Great Expectations or you'd have a refined apreciation for
what
was accomplished in the David Lean film.
Let us know how Daredevil 2 is!!!

Bluff and Bluster!


Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance
of a good book.





And I may as well add....BWAAHAHAAHA!

Of course. You enjoy it, so go ahead! Why shouldn't you proclaim your
lack of culture loudly?


Regards


Donal
--

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

Donal wrote:



Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance
of a good book.


Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the
'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content
level a film generally contians far more data than a book.

Cheers

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

In article , MC
wrote:

Donal wrote:



Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance
of a good book.


Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the
'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content
level a film generally contians far more data than a book.


For those with little/no imagination......

PDW

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance
of a good book.

Of course they don't. In fact films are rarely good at all. Most books are also
pretty bad. But there are exceptions, which you really should look into.
I strongly suggest you read Great Expectations, then see the David Lean movie.
I suspect you'll be moved on all counts. Seriously.

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

For those with little/no imagination......

Donal's comments seemed paramountly dumb until the comment above was written.
Next we'll hear the theatre vs. cinema challenge.

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

BB 'n RB! who'd a guessed it?


More importantly, "who'd come up with it and labor on about it?"

Only Donal and Scotty!

Bwahahahahaa!

RB

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

The imagination is in your mind, but not necesarily in that of the
author. Are you saying that you've never seen a film that is a greater
work of art than the book it was based on? Have you seen Blade Runner?

Cheers

Peter Wiley wrote:

In article , MC
wrote:


Donal wrote:



Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the brilliance
of a good book.


Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the
'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content
level a film generally contians far more data than a book.



For those with little/no imagination......

PDW

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

In article , MC
wrote:

The imagination is in your mind, but not necesarily in that of the
author.

So?

Are you saying that you've never seen a film that is a greater
work of art than the book it was based on?

Yes. I read over 100 books a year, some years over 200, mix of fiction,
non-fiction and tech stuff. If we're restricting this to fiction, I can
safely say that I've never seen a movie that was better than the book.
If you feel differently, this may well reflect differences in what you
& I read. There's no movie I've ever seen that hasn't butchered the
book's plot and character development in an attempt to get it small
enough/simple enough for a film. Maybe if your reading taste runs to
generic Westerns and the like, this isn't a problem. Not much plot to
cut down.

Have you seen Blade Runner?

No. Nor have I bothered watching Terminator, Die Hard and other such
ilk. Life's too short to waste it on such crap.

PDW


Cheers

Peter Wiley wrote:

In article , MC
wrote:


Donal wrote:



Films rarely manage to capture more than a tiny percentage of the
brilliance
of a good book.


Sometimes they can be much more. Perhaps you should look beyond the
'plot' and consider the cinematography... At a physical data content
level a film generally contians far more data than a book.



For those with little/no imagination......

PDW

MacGregor 26 2004 model
 

Peter Wiley wrote:


Yes. I read over 100 books a year, some years over 200, mix of fiction,
non-fiction and tech stuff.

4 books a week is a lot. I bet you could get a reader badge for that.

If we're restricting this to fiction, I can
safely say that I've never seen a movie that was better than the book.
If you feel differently, this may well reflect differences in what you
& I read. There's no movie I've ever seen that hasn't butchered the
book's plot and character development in an attempt to get it small
enough/simple enough for a film. Maybe if your reading taste runs to
generic Westerns and the like, this isn't a problem. Not much plot to
cut down.

Nope, never read Westerns.

Have you seen Blade Runner?


No. Nor have I bothered watching Terminator, Die Hard and other such
ilk. Life's too short to waste it on such crap.


Have you read the book Blade Runner was based on?
If not, then how do you know the film and/or book is crap?

Cheers MC