I just finished reading 'Stardust' by Neil Gaiman. I really enjoyed it. However, after reading nothing but graphic novels for a few months, there weren't enough pictures ;) Anyway, it was very weird reading a book after I saw the movie. I think this is the only time that has happened for me. I have read books and seen the movie later on several occasions. Almost without fail the movies are a disappointment. But, it has always been watching the 90 minute movie after reading the 8+ hour book. Now that I have experienced reading the book after watching the movie, I think it's terrible thing. You should always read the book first, or just skip it entirely. I had a hard time enjoying Stardust...without thinking about the movie the whole time. I could never really get into Neil Gaiman's story as it "drifted from the movie." Maybe in a few years I'll be able to go back and enjoy the novel. It was a good book, don't get me wrong, but I knew what was going to happen. Or, I thought I knew what was going to happen. When events didn't happen like the movie, I was more distracted by that and thinking about that than I was the actual story I was reading.
I dunno...anyone else have a similar experience?
2 comments:
You know the rule, "you can't see the movie until you read the book"
You must remember who I live with.
Yeah, I'm reading Lord of the Rings now, and it's just screwing me up...haha
Actually, I am reading LotR again, and it makes me appreciate both, since they did do a good job with the movies, but it makes me mindful of the things movies focus on compared to books. Half of Two Towers (the movie) was the battle scene, where in the book it's hardly anything.
Now I have to read Stardust, since I've seen the movie and not read the book.
Post a Comment