Anyone regret reading a book?

Day Lewin wrote: »

The film is nothing like the story.

"The Hobbit" is a children's book, originally written by the author for his own kids, bit by bit. A light-hearted book, with some funny scenes, talking animals etc. And a serious plot twist too.

When Jackson had finished making "Lord of the Rings" he must have decided that the public love battles like video-games!
- so, why doesn't he make a film of the Hobbit, like a Prequel, and simply fill it with video-game battles that go on and on and ON?
It was a terrible film that I regret paying money for: but the original book should be viewed as a kid's story-book; fresh and innocent.

The Peter Jackson adaptations are a cinematic example of the inverse square law.

He originally pitched the Lord of the Rings as two movies but New Line decided that there was sufficient material in the books to actually warrant 3 films. Jackson was ecstatic. He, Fran Walsh and Philippa Bowens actually had to drop material from the books e.g. Beorn and the Scouring of the Shire which upset fans of the book. As Jackson himself put it "..this could actually go on and on and on". As such, over 3 very long films the subjective quality could be consistently strong as a consequence of the book being such a strong 'source' material.

The opposite happened with The Hobbit movies. The source wasn't strong enough to warrant a trilogy. It was a children's book. It was sufficient for one long movie, not three but New Line wanted to follow the $ucce$$ formula from the original trilogy and the filmmakers had to drum up second rate, weak material to the detriment of the overall quality of three long movies.



Think of S as "The Lord of the Rings" with r as The Fellowship of the Ring movie. You get to make a rich, thematic movie but there is sufficient strength from S to allow 2r (The Two Towers) and 3r (Return of the King) to receive sufficient intensity from S with the subjective quality holding over time. The Hobbit simply didn't have enough strength in S to sustain it over 2r and 3r per above. If it was only done with r it would have been a classic film. So when someone says the Hobbit films were crap, just tell them "well that's the inverse square law for you". The plot and the running times were, as Bilbo himself might put it "....thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread"

pauliebdub wrote: »

I've just finished Gone Girl and found the ending very unsatisfying and just implausible.

Agreed although I loved the book as a whole. I think the whole point of it was the none of the characters were particularly likable.

The one book I regret reading entirely is The Road - so bleak and depressing and the film was even worse.

quickbeam wrote: »

Though an entirely different genre of book, the above description reminded me of the same sort of thing happening in Master & Commander which I read recently. I found it utterly impossible to figure out where or what was happening at any given time. I have serious disinterest in continuing with the series.

I chain-read the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin books after I discovered M&C by accident. They are engrossing and charming and enlightening and exciting and heartbreaking and amusing and occasionally bewildering but mostly perfect. The seafaring vocabulary leaks into my daily speech even now and the characters are like friends I wish I could ring for a chat.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Joseph O'Connor, Redemption Falls.

Such a disappointing follow up to the epic Star of the Sea.

Yes, I was very, very disappointed.

I have never finished a book that I didnt like. There isn't enough time to read all the books in the world, so why waste time on one that you dont like?

My mother-in-law insisted on finishing once she started. She saw it as a challenge if it was a bad book.

Also.... I did write a novel once, and struggled to get it published. And every piece of advice I read said that the first page, the first paragraph, HAS to capture the reader. Then I read some piece of dross and get annoyed that they got this published. I always finish 1 chapter, just in case. But if it hasn't hooked me by then ... Off to the next one!

A book about the Mafia, can't remember the title or author.
I won't read another books about them.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

....boks started but never finished:
Catch 22
Moby Dick
Great Expectations

OP.... Do try that concentration camp book. A depressing/ thought-provoking story might still be a good book. "Mans Search For Meaning" (viktor frankls personal story of life in various concentration camps) is a favourite of mine and I get something positive out of it every time i read it.

I read Catch 22 about 30 years ago and I recall that I loved a lot of it but there is a huge section in the middle that was just torturous On the pain of death though, don't read Heller's follow-up "Something Happened". Relentlessly depressing, unhumourous (it's not meant to be) self absorbed, drivel.

Another book that was supposed to capture the zeitgeist was The World According to Garp. It was supposed to be funny and feminist. I thought it was misogynistic and about a funny as a guinness, chicken tikka masala and piles combination.

This won't be popular but Lord of the Rings was the first book that I started and decided life was too short and finishing books was not compulsory.