The Coffee House

[robbins.photo]

So I was really good about staying away from triggers but alas, the headache found me anyway Hopefully it won't be too bad this time.

One found me by the time I woke up. Two Advil and a coffee so far and holding my own - we'll see how the day develops and how much people manage to aggravate me here at work. Hope yours is on the way out.

Morning, hosers!

Painkillers and coffee. Truly, the breakfast of champions. Lol

 

[sm4him]

Neighbor Jeff with his 98 pound watermelon. Coffee buds we need help with eatin thisView attachment 107555

I'm pretty close to you. I'll just leave work a few minutes early and be there before it gets dark. Save me a great big chunk of that melon!

 

[sm4him]

The wife and I saw A Walk in the Woods yesterday. If you want a comedy with lots of cliched jokes, fat shaming/jokes, drunk jokes, and whatnot, go see it. It had its moments. If you read the book, you'll notice some differences. I think the biggest part that annoyed me in the movie was that they were on the trail for many miles, and their bodies/boots/gear showed essentially no signs of wear. That was a disappointment to me.

Morning, hosers!

I wasn't really interested in seeing that movie, but now I have even less interest. The book was good - Bryson is an entertaining writer while still presenting real information. I think it was a bad idea to begin with to make a movie out of the book.

Ed, I'll be down in an hour or so with a bib on!

So I was really good about staying away from triggers but alas, the headache found me anyway Hopefully it won't be too bad this time.

I thought about going to see it--but I ended up deciding to just re-read the book instead. I really like Redford, so that was the main attraction to me as far as seeing the movie. But I'm not much of a Nick Nolte fan (although I can definitely see him as Katz--he does blundering annoyance pretty well). As I'm re-reading it, I keep thinking, how in the blazes would they make all this commentary--which is what really completes the book--anything that could translate to a movie?

 

[robbins.photo]

The wife and I saw A Walk in the Woods yesterday. If you want a comedy with lots of cliched jokes, fat shaming/jokes, drunk jokes, and whatnot, go see it. It had its moments. If you read the book, you'll notice some differences. I think the biggest part that annoyed me in the movie was that they were on the trail for many miles, and their bodies/boots/gear showed essentially no signs of wear. That was a disappointment to me.

Morning, hosers!

I wasn't really interested in seeing that movie, but now I have even less interest. The book was good - Bryson is an entertaining writer while still presenting real information. I think it was a bad idea to begin with to make a movie out of the book.

Ed, I'll be down in an hour or so with a bib on!

So I was really good about staying away from triggers but alas, the headache found me anyway Hopefully it won't be too bad this time.

I thought about going to see it--but I ended up deciding to just re-read the book instead. I really like Redford, so that was the main attraction to me as far as seeing the movie. But I'm not much of a Nick Nolte fan (although I can definitely see him as Katz--he does blundering annoyance pretty well). As I'm re-reading it, I keep thinking, how in the blazes would they make all this commentary--which is what really completes the book--anything that could translate to a movie?

I haven't seen a whole lot of movies based on books where the movie was actually better than the book.

Well, comic books maybe.. but not actual books. Lol

 

[Designer]

.. lots of cliched jokes, fat shaming/jokes, drunk jokes, ..

Thank you for reinforcing my decision to avoid movies.

 

[waday]

I wasn't really interested in seeing that movie, but now I have even less interest. The book was good - Bryson is an entertaining writer while still presenting real information. I think it was a bad idea to begin with to make a movie out of the book.

I thought about going to see it--but I ended up deciding to just re-read the book instead. I really like Redford, so that was the main attraction to me as far as seeing the movie. But I'm not much of a Nick Nolte fan (although I can definitely see him as Katz--he does blundering annoyance pretty well). As I'm re-reading it, I keep thinking, how in the blazes would they make all this commentary--which is what really completes the book--anything that could translate to a movie?

Admittedly, I read the book a long time ago, so I forgot a lot of the nuances. My wife started reading the book, so she's helped remind me of the differences. If you want it to be entertaining, just reread the book imagining Redford and Nolte in the parts. I was actually excited when I heard they made a movie, as I was hoping it'd be entertaining even if they took some 'artistic liberties'.

One difference that annoyed me more than it should have: In the book. when Katz is trying to get on the top bunk in the cabin, he's struggling, right? In the movie, he gets up fine, but then breaks through and falls on top of Bryson. No imagination whatsoever in that joke--pure cliche.

 

[Designer]

I think it was a bad idea to begin with to make a movie out of the book.

They don't do it for us, they do it for themselves.

 

[sm4him]

The wife and I saw A Walk in the Woods yesterday. If you want a comedy with lots of cliched jokes, fat shaming/jokes, drunk jokes, and whatnot, go see it. It had its moments. If you read the book, you'll notice some differences. I think the biggest part that annoyed me in the movie was that they were on the trail for many miles, and their bodies/boots/gear showed essentially no signs of wear. That was a disappointment to me.

Morning, hosers!

I wasn't really interested in seeing that movie, but now I have even less interest. The book was good - Bryson is an entertaining writer while still presenting real information. I think it was a bad idea to begin with to make a movie out of the book.

Ed, I'll be down in an hour or so with a bib on!

So I was really good about staying away from triggers but alas, the headache found me anyway Hopefully it won't be too bad this time.

I thought about going to see it--but I ended up deciding to just re-read the book instead. I really like Redford, so that was the main attraction to me as far as seeing the movie. But I'm not much of a Nick Nolte fan (although I can definitely see him as Katz--he does blundering annoyance pretty well). As I'm re-reading it, I keep thinking, how in the blazes would they make all this commentary--which is what really completes the book--anything that could translate to a movie?

I haven't seen a whole lot of movies based on books where the movie was actually better than the book.

Well, comic books maybe.. but not actual books. Lol

I don't know that I've EVER seen a movie that was BETTER than the book (of course, that's based on books I actually liked, since I don't like the book, I probably won't go see the movie anyway). I have seen maybe one or two movies, ever, that I felt came very close to being as good as the book. Most of the time, however--the more I like the book, the more disappointed I'm likely to be by the movie.

 

[sm4him]

I wasn't really interested in seeing that movie, but now I have even less interest. The book was good - Bryson is an entertaining writer while still presenting real information. I think it was a bad idea to begin with to make a movie out of the book.

I thought about going to see it--but I ended up deciding to just re-read the book instead. I really like Redford, so that was the main attraction to me as far as seeing the movie. But I'm not much of a Nick Nolte fan (although I can definitely see him as Katz--he does blundering annoyance pretty well). As I'm re-reading it, I keep thinking, how in the blazes would they make all this commentary--which is what really completes the book--anything that could translate to a movie?

Admittedly, I read the book a long time ago, so I forgot a lot of the nuances. My wife started reading the book, so she's helped remind me of the differences. If you want it to be entertaining, just reread the book imagining Redford and Nolte in the parts. I was actually excited when I heard they made a movie, as I was hoping it'd be entertaining even if they took some 'artistic liberties'.

One difference that annoyed me more than it should have: In the book. when Katz is trying to get on the top bunk in the cabin, he's struggling, right? In the movie, he gets up fine, but then breaks through and falls on top of Bryson. No imagination whatsoever in that joke--pure cliche.

In the book, it wouldn't even have been Bryson he fell on top of! That was part of what made his struggle to the top and then the thud and "crack" as he hit the bunk bed, so hilarious, was imagining the look on this complete stranger's face as he feared this bungling bozo was about to come through the bed and land on him.

 

[robbins.photo]

I don't know that I've EVER seen a movie that was BETTER than the book (of course, that's based on books I actually liked, since I don't like the book, I probably won't go see the movie anyway). I have seen maybe one or two movies, ever, that I felt came very close to being as good as the book. Most of the time, however--the more I like the book, the more disappointed I'm likely to be by the movie.

I can only think of a very few really. Salem's Lot.. the original 1979 version, which I'm not sure qualifies since technically it was a TV miniseries as I recall, but the "movie" version was first rate and I actually enjoyed it better than the book. The remake of course stunk on ice.

The Hunt for Red October, the character of Captain Ramius as played by Connery came of so much better in the movie version than in the book version, really added a lot of dimension and depth to the character.

The only other that comes to mind would be Shawshank Redemption, but not sure if that counts either since it was based on a short story rather than a whole book, and I'm not sure if the movie version is really "better" persee, I'd rate them about equal.

 

[limr]

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies did an excellent job of interpreting the books into film. I still like the books better, but the movies are excellent.
(Edit: I did an excellent job of overusing the word excellent. I think it's excellent when I don't proofread. And now I have Bill and Ted's voices stuck in my head. Excellent.)

I remember saying this in some thread many moons ago, but I also thought that Planet of the Apes was possibly better than the book for no other reason than the ending. I'm talking about the Charlton Heston version, not the friggin' Marky Mark remake. The film changed the ending of the book: instead of going back to Earth and finding that it too had been taken over by the apes, Charlton Heston finds the Statue of Liberty on the beach and realizes he's been on Earth the whole time. I think that was just a brilliant twist that made for a far better ending than the book's version. Classic O.Henry literary style in movie form.

 

[sm4him]

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies did an excellent job of interpreting the books into film. I still like the books better, but the movies are excellent.

I remember saying this in some thread many moons ago, but I also thought that Planet of the Apes was possibly better than the book for no other reason than the ending. I'm talking about the Charlton Heston version, not the friggin' Marky Mark remake. The film changed the ending of the book: instead of going back to Earth and finding that it too had been taken over by the apes, Charlton Heston finds the Statue of Liberty on the beach and realizes he's been on Earth the whole time. I think that was just a brilliant twist that made for a far better ending than the book's version. Classic O.Henry literary style in movie form.

Yes, LOTR is one of the very few I had in mind. Even though there were the typical things left out, or changes made, the overall "interpretation" of the books was outstanding. I, too, like the books better (they are on my Top 5 Favorite of all time list), but on the other hand, I like that I can watch the movies in an evening or two.
The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe was another movie that did an excellent job of giving a good interpretation of the book (which is also on my Top 5 list).

The single WORST book-to-movie adaptation, for me, was The Shining. That movie really p*ssed me off, it was so far off the mark. The Shining was one of my favorite King novels, and as far as I'm concerned, that movie didn't even deserve the same name.
I can see how it would be a really good movie, if I just hadn't already read the book. For about a decade after that movie came out, I just steadfastly *refused* to go see a movie if I'd already read the book. I truly think it was the beginning of the demise of movie-watching for me.
These days, I rarely ever go see a movie--the last time I went to a movie, was The Butler, and that was because my mom wanted to see it. And I don't watch them much on Netflix, etc either--I'd mostly just rather spend my time reading a book.

In fact, I've seen trailers for movies that sounded really good, but my response is to go read the book. That was the case for Unbroken and The Gone Girl; both were really good reads that I would have missed if they hadn't been made into movies, but I've never actually seen either movie.

 

[robbins.photo]

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies did an excellent job of interpreting the books into film. I still like the books better, but the movies are excellent.

I remember saying this in some thread many moons ago, but I also thought that Planet of the Apes was possibly better than the book for no other reason than the ending. I'm talking about the Charlton Heston version, not the friggin' Marky Mark remake. The film changed the ending of the book: instead of going back to Earth and finding that it too had been taken over by the apes, Charlton Heston finds the Statue of Liberty on the beach and realizes he's been on Earth the whole time. I think that was just a brilliant twist that made for a far better ending than the book's version. Classic O.Henry literary style in movie form.

I don't think I ever read the Planet of the Ape books, I did enjoy the movies - despite the fact that the screenplays seem to have been written by Gorillaphobes.. lol

Like you I think they did a spectacular job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, though I can't really rate them as better than the books, it would have to be a pretty close tie though. One thing I did get from the movies that I didn't get from the books is a little better understanding of the character of Golum. Part of that might have been that his multiple personality disorder was just more evident in the movie version, or it may have been that when I read the books I was fairly young, whereas I saw the movies as an adult so it might have just been that I had a better understanding myself of things like that when I watched the movies.

 

[sm4him]

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies did an excellent job of interpreting the books into film. I still like the books better, but the movies are excellent.

I remember saying this in some thread many moons ago, but I also thought that Planet of the Apes was possibly better than the book for no other reason than the ending. I'm talking about the Charlton Heston version, not the friggin' Marky Mark remake. The film changed the ending of the book: instead of going back to Earth and finding that it too had been taken over by the apes, Charlton Heston finds the Statue of Liberty on the beach and realizes he's been on Earth the whole time. I think that was just a brilliant twist that made for a far better ending than the book's version. Classic O.Henry literary style in movie form.

I don't think I ever read the Planet of the Ape books, I did enjoy the movies - despite the fact that the screenplays seem to have been written by Gorillaphobes.. lol

Like you I think they did a spectacular job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, though I can't really rate them as better than the books, it would have to be a pretty close tie though. One thing I did get from the movies that I didn't get from the books is a little better understanding of the character of Golum. Part of that might have been that his multiple personality disorder was just more evident in the movie version, or it may have been that when I read the books I was fairly young, whereas I saw the movies as an adult so it might have just been that I had a better understanding myself of things like that when I watched the movies.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add a true confession to my post:
I have never read the Planet of the Apes books. I have also never seen the Planet of the Apes movie, original or remake.

 

[robbins.photo]

I thought the Lord of the Rings movies did an excellent job of interpreting the books into film. I still like the books better, but the movies are excellent.

I remember saying this in some thread many moons ago, but I also thought that Planet of the Apes was possibly better than the book for no other reason than the ending. I'm talking about the Charlton Heston version, not the friggin' Marky Mark remake. The film changed the ending of the book: instead of going back to Earth and finding that it too had been taken over by the apes, Charlton Heston finds the Statue of Liberty on the beach and realizes he's been on Earth the whole time. I think that was just a brilliant twist that made for a far better ending than the book's version. Classic O.Henry literary style in movie form.

I don't think I ever read the Planet of the Ape books, I did enjoy the movies - despite the fact that the screenplays seem to have been written by Gorillaphobes.. lol

Like you I think they did a spectacular job with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, though I can't really rate them as better than the books, it would have to be a pretty close tie though. One thing I did get from the movies that I didn't get from the books is a little better understanding of the character of Golum. Part of that might have been that his multiple personality disorder was just more evident in the movie version, or it may have been that when I read the books I was fairly young, whereas I saw the movies as an adult so it might have just been that I had a better understanding myself of things like that when I watched the movies.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add a true confession to my post:
I have never read the Planet of the Apes books. I have also never seen the Planet of the Apes movie, original or remake.

The original is worth watching, if nothing else it explains the ending for Spaceballs.

The marky Mark remakes, eh. Let's just say I liked it better when he was pretending to be a rap star then when he decided to pretend to be an actor.

Yikes

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk