You really need to proof read your posts or I'm going to have to suspend you, sootyj.
TV/film better than book? Page 2
Trainspotting.
The film was enormously superior to the book.
I loved the "choose life" speech so much that I practically tripped over me own feet in a rush to get to the library and grab a copy of the book. When I got the book I found it to be the biggest piece of disconnected drivel-shite ever published.
Dig:
The success of the film is due to the great liberties taken by the screenwriter---it was HIS writing that made the film spectacular. All the best scenes in the film CANNOT be found in the book.
The book ain't even a proper novel. It's a bunch of character sketches with a slight thread of a short story running through. Truly lame writing.
I've checked out all of his books (Irvine Welsh) and they are dull, dull, dull. The sentences read about as exciting as a heroin daydream. Slow. Dull. Empty. Worthless.
None of his other books would have been published had it not been for the outstanding success stemming from the glorious job the screenwriter did for the film version of Trainspotting.
Word.
Quote: Skibbington von Skubber @ August 11 2008, 11:31 AM BSTTrainspotting.
The film was enormously superior to the book.
Curiously enough, I had the complete opposite reaction. Possibly due to having read the book first. So, stick that in yer pipe!
Trainspotting the film was spectacular, surreal, hilarious and alround brilliant.
The Lust for Life speech, the toilet scene, the stealing for heroin speech.
The book was so boring, unreadably vernacular and pretensious at the same time.
I like sci-fi films, but find science fiction novels generally awful.
Blade Runner was far better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. But that might because of Rutger....
The Rachel Papers has to be one of the worst films from one of the best books.
You only live twice, Dr No, and many other early Bond films were better than the books.
And Casino Royale new version I think is better than the book.
Bond books actually not very good.
Quote: sootyj @ August 11 2008, 11:55 AM BSTThe book was so boring, unreadably vernacular and pretensious at the same time.
pretentious*
Roald Daaaaahl????
Ooh.
He was magic.
"Magic!"
Hey I'm trying only one duff spelling in the whole post.
I keep trying and trying.
Roald Dahl was probably a superior writer to Flemming.
You Only Live Twice was such a stupid, improbable novel.
Yeah! All his books are fantastic.
I still have the ones I 'obtained' from the school library when I was little.
You know Dahl was a famous antisemite. He refused to be interviewed by the Jewish Chronicle.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, was meant to have a snide joke about Aushwitz in it.
The factory where the chimmneys kept burning and no one ever left.
I loved Dahl as a writer.
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?
Bummer. 
(I will wiki him...)
I thought the Mr. Men TV series was far superior to the books. Far more gritty realism and I think the sexual scenes of deep anal penetration were done tastefully as indeed was the repeating of the word 'c**t' six times in a row.