| 
Posted Feb 18, 2000 by Afgncaap5 (Totally Perplexed! A15955914)
Man, it's about time someone wrote an entry on this book. It's probably why I spend so much time in libraries nowadays. And why I prefer rabbits to cats. Besides, if cats were much larger, they'd eat people. At least rabbits wouldn't consider you dinner. 
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Feb 18, 2000 by Penguin Girl - returned at last
It's a great book - perhaps one of the only ones I've read in a class and still enjoyed. I read it in the 7th grade, which many adults were amazed about. I enjoyed reading a book that, although the back cover doesn't make it seem very interesting, had many more secrets than were easily revealed. Almost everyone in the class ended up enjoying it, and picking a favorite character - mine was Fiver.
and hey, I like cats. But they shouldn't eat people. We don't have wild rabbits here, which might explain why I don't know much about them.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 19, 2000 by Gwennie
I had a "free range" rabbit called Roger - he dug his own burrow in the garden as, after a time, I couldn't bear to keep him caged and he didn't run away when he was released. He was great friends with my five cats and two dogs and regularly played tag and wrestled with the cats and one of the dogs who was a puppy at the time. In fact, he even attempted to "shag" the puppy (poor, confused beastie). I'm almost certain that Roger thought he was a cat or dog!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 19, 2000 by Small fish
Referring to the title of this conversation, I would have to disagree. The film is better. Although the book's pretty good. There's alot of stuff in the book which is missed out in the film. It's a pretty deep story for a children's book.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 19, 2000 by Penguin Girl - returned at last
I really never thought it was a children's book at all. The movie was good, in fact much better than most books made into movies. The main reason I prefer the book is probably that I read it first, and got attached. What exactly do you mean, though?
-leah
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 19, 2000 by Afgncaap5 (Totally Perplexed! A15955914)
Well, I know for a fact that I'm not the best judge of movies or books, but I enjoyed it when my mom read it to me at age six. I also think of General Woundwart (am I spelling that correctly?) as more menacing when I read the book. On the film, you can tell that he's the bad guy, but he just doesn't have that subtle factor that makes you want to hate him as much.
Penguin Girl-You're favorite character was Fiver? Neat, mine too. I named my rabbit after him. Of course, mine isn't as small. Or telekinetic. Or shy. Oh, well.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 20, 2000 by Jim
Yeah, I would agree that the book is better. Adams seems to draw you into the whole world of rabbits. On another note, the actor who supplied the voice of Bigwig was Michael Graham Cox - I looked after him in his declining years until he died. A lovely man with a beautiful voice.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 20, 2000 by Gwennie
Of course the book is better. I haven't yet seen a film which is actually better than the book it orignated from..
However, my nine year old autistic son adored the film of Watership Down (we all had to watch it repeatedly for months) which I'm really pleased about as I doubt if he'll ever be able to read the book.
The film also encouraged my 12 year old daughter to switch her Playstation off and grab my copy of the book to read which she really enjoyed.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 20, 2000 by Afgncaap5 (Totally Perplexed! A15955914)
I doubt any movie has ever truly been better than the book, with the possible exception of movies that came before the books. Such as Star Wars. The books are interesting, but they lack the originality. I guess you could say that whichever medium it first appears on is the one that contains the whole soul of the work. Having never heard the radio version of HHGTTG I will continue to believe this. Although, I still prefer the books to the BBC series.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 28, 2000 by Penguin Girl - returned at last
Yes, that's usually true. The second one, whether it be book or movie, just isn't as good. Usually the original holds more to the story line, and is more complete, because they didn't cut things to make it fit for a 2 hour movie. Or a paperback meant for 12 year olds, who contrary to popular belief, don't need it dumbed down THAT MUCH.
Now here's an example of this taken to extremes: A few years ago, the book Little Women was made into a movie. Then, as with all major motion pictures, including NC-17 rated horror films, they published a short, paperback, children's novel, "Based on the award winning motion picture".
Also, I do agree about most Starwars books being bad, but I did like the Zahn ones. All the rest were really over glorified fanfics.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 28, 2000 by Penguin Girl - returned at last
I am, unfortuantely, terrible allergic to rabbits. I don't know why. They're so cute and cuddly....
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 29, 2000 by Jenny and Fred the cheese
it all depends on your interpretation, a book can seem inferior for example if you see the film first meerly because it doesn't fit with how you see the story, charactors etc. most of the time the first is best though yes.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Feb 29, 2000 by Afgncaap5 (Totally Perplexed! A15955914)
True, I've always believed that if you have a biased opinion, you keep it, no matter how little this has to do with what you just said. Like I said, I prefer the hitchiker books to the movies. I've never heard the radio series, but I'd be willing to bet that I'd prefer the book. I don't know why.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 1, 2000 by Penguin Girl - returned at last
Yes, I did prefer the hitchhiker books. I guess I usually prefer the books because I love reading. Also, sometimes the reason a book is good has to do with writing style more than plot. This isn't to say that the plot can be bad, but it doesn't have to be stupendous if the style's good. ONe Example of this(for me) is the author Alfred Bester. I like his book, although the plots a fairly typical, because his writing style is so drawing that you cna't stop reading and want more when you're done. At least, I do.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 6, 2000 by Jenny and Fred the cheese
i agree, of course for HHGG all three are written by Douglas Adams and are airly similar in style, it's the content that varies as much as anything. Though i've not seen the TV i think i like the radio and books about evenly, both have a lot that doesn't exist in the other.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 7, 2000 by Penguin Girl - returned at last
I've never actually heard the radio versions, but in my copy of the 5 books all together, Douglas Adams makes an introductory comment about how no 2 things HHGG should have anything whatsoever in common. And perhaps something about digital watches, though I'm not sure.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 8, 2000 by Small fish
I've only ever read the trilogy (in four parts), but I take this as the real hhgttg, and it is my bible.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 8, 2000 by Jenny and Fred the cheese
what? you've not read mostly harmless? ooooooooooh you must you must
|
| | |
| |
Posted Mar 8, 2000 by Afgncaap5 (Totally Perplexed! A15955914)
You know, while the books are (IMHO) the best, a close second would have to be the Infocom text game that he co-authored. (Said the one who was possesed by text games).
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
