Movies before books? Books before movies?

[afuna]

[Poll #1155065]

(This comes from a discussion that aveleh and I are having, because I haven't seen/read The Princess Bride, but I have both the movie and the book on hand, but started reading the book first).

Comments

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Haha! You've watched the Extended editions, I presume? :))

[afuna]

Yes! My brother bought them ;-)

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Nice!

I didn't know you were a fan of the novels! :o

[afuna]

I think what made me saddest was that they didn't have time for Tom Bombadil.

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Well, unfortunately, he was a bit of filler (if in terms of the movies).

[afuna]

Yeah he was. I guess I can understand, but I really like him :(

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Hihi.

He wasn't in the Hobbit though, no? They're making that into a two-part film, but I kind of feel that it's gonna be too long. Or maybe two 1 and a half hour films instead of one 3 hour special, just so they can milk the profits. XD

[afuna]

Hmm. No, he wasn't. I didn't realize they were making a Hobbit film! Who's the director?

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Yes they are! None other than Peter Jackson himself!

And, in a very Peter Jackson-esque move, they are going to make two (not one, BUT TWO!) films out of The Hobbit. :))

Serves two purposes, imo: to fit lots more content in (although I do remember the Hobbit was about half or three-fourths the length of any of the Trilogy?), and to sell more. :)

[afuna]

Oh! Thanks for the information. Yeah, the Hobbit was about three-fourths the length of any of the Trilogy. OTOH, I vaguely remember that it had less of the sweeping descriptions of landscape?

[atomic-clay.livejournal.com]

Yes, I believe it did have less of those (which take up a huge part of LotR). XD

More riddles though! Haha!