Monday, March 25, 2013

Rage of Thrones

There are times one must put a stake in the ground: The book was better. This video, the latest from the Axis of Awesome (some language NSFW), pokes fun at the folk who have discovered “The Game of Thrones”, perhaps unaware that the story first appeared as books. As so many stories have.

The repeated chant, “Hollywood cannot live up top to the power of imagination” is appropriate enough much of the time, but sometimes Hollywood gets it right. For me, the first “Lord of the Rings” was as I imagined it—but each subsequent one strayed more and more (I haven’t seen “The Hobbit” yet).

Each of us can point to a story that was better in the book or the movie. It’s to be expected. But to be unaware that a movie was a book first—well, that’s kind of a deal breaker, I think.

What do you say? Movie or book: Does it matter to you which is better?

Related: The last time I posted a video from the Axis of Awesome was July of last year.


Roger Green said...

Bridges of Madison County - unreadable book, decent movie. That said, the book usually IS better.

Roger Green said...

On the other hand, it's just a different animal. Life of Pi, which I did not read, was considered unfilmable. Yet Ang Lee won a Best Director Oscar for it.

Sometimes the book is too long, too dense, and the movie brings clarity.

Arthur (AmeriNZ) said...

To be honest, some books make better movies, some movies are better as books. But when I've read a book, it's pretty rare for me to like the movie better!