Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
he had cancer didn't he? (haven't read link) poor guy :(
They are going to insert his DNA into a chimp. On the plus side it will be able to type with both hands and feet at the same time, producing at least four airport blockbuster books a year -on the down side it will scream and throw poo at you.
Hadn't he gone mad and denied that climate change was actually happening? I remember trying to read 'Jurassic Park' at the age of 7. Fun and confusing times.
That's fucked up.
Jackie Collins didn't write the book that first got me reading proper novels and opened up my eyes to a genre I'd never given any thought before. If she had, I'd have been a very different child!
What they really mean is "I'm halfway through rereading The Andromeda Strain for the gajillionth time and it's fuckin' brilliant, yo."
he got people to read books and that's a good thing. Jurassic Park is a far superior book to fucking Catcher in the Rye anyway.
Plus he was really tall.
did you need read Roald Dahl or something?
maybe something like the Exorcist or some Stevo King. Or the Turtles novelisation.
Don't think I won't forget this.
Unfortunately as a writer of said plots she was really quite poor.
That said, we'll always have Peter Ustinov playing Poirot in Death on the Nile.
This thread just keeps on giving.
but have you read both to actually compare?
Don't answer him, Pike!
Why the fuck would they do that?
I didn't think the book was as good as the film, but then I'd see the film before I read the book.
"Why would they do that?" It's almost as though Jurassic Park were the passionate vision of a cinematic auteur, rather than a summer blockbuster with a shitolad of merchandise attached.
The Screenplay and the book. Or moreover, it seems weird to me to think they'd do that for anything that was a book first.
Did they do a novelization of 'The Beach' where they re-wrote it to match the film?
You mean, did someone publish a simplistically-written version of The Beach that a child of five could understand? Oddly enough, nobody saw the need for it.
I mean, it's not as though Crichton's writing is that complex and impenetrable.
The film of JP is really quite different from the book, yeah? In the book, Dickie Attenborough's character is an evil fuck, Sam Neill LOVES kids, Goldblum's character dies as does Dickie's and the whole tone of it is dark and depressing.
So a novelization of the film would be a re-write of the book. I picked 'The Beach' because yet again, there's a load of changes to it, including the ending.
but yeah, I've read both. I got the original book out of the library after reading the novelisation that someone got me as a present. To be honest I can't remember much about either – it's the film that sticks in the mind most.
Let's just let that hang there for posterity.
Catcher in the Rye is a book for retards who have the brain of a 13 year old retard.
it's fucking awful. Usually liked by the kind of people who think On the Road is good.
the Dickensian vision of a grimy industrial cityscape would be greatly enhanced by a diplodocus walking around, perhaps with a monocle
You understand that the movie is quite a big re-write of the original novel in order to make it a family friendly affair that Spielberg wanted to film?
I haven't read anything by him since I was 10 years old, mostly because I'd like to remember them with affection!
The Andromeda Strain
The First Great Train Robbery
All of those are fantastic movies.
Hang on...if Crichton voted and then died later that day, does his vote count? I DEMAND A RECOUNT!
couldn't you get me a jumper or something?"
When did you turn into a Family Guy writer?