Books are always better than the movies that are adapted to them. I will hear any arguments to the contrary.
Books are always better than the movies that are adapted to them. I will hear any arguments to the contrary.
Fight Club.
What the hell? You can't prove anyone wrong on this, as it is almost always a matter of opinion.
2/10
Yeah, I think your thread deserves a 2/10. Prove me wrong.
Know what's good about movies? Only takes 2 hours then I can take a nap.
I read and post in plenty of shitty 2/10 threads, your proof is flawed.
Prove you wrong?
The Princess Bride
Fight Club (edit: Damn, beaten twice )
Forrest Gump
http://www.geekroar.com/film/archives/000061.php
3 movies? idk I asked google and this is what google said!
at least with a movie i dont have to pay attention to know what the fuck is going on
Let's see. A good, decent sized book, takes like what, 2-3hours to read maybe? Some are even longer? A movie is 1.5hrs give or take. Therefor, movies win.
The burden of proof is on you because you made the claim, buddy. I liek them books and mobies. Though, I only readz classical literature (divine comedy, leviathan, penses, etc. etc.) and avoid fiction (lord of the rings and harry potter bullshit)
<3 Jim Gaffigan.
Hey I just saw Heat. (That movie came out ten years ago) But I wanna talk about it now!
Yea, this is true.
It is partly opinion, but I donno, I don't like the comparisons in most cases - it's another medium of expressing a story (between a movie and a book). I frankly find both more enjoyable if I separate the two and see them as independent.
you know what really suck...
Books that are based on movies that are based on books.
To Kill A Mockingbird