Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler: Epic rant about adaptations (click to show/hide)

Meh... I disagree with most people about the adaptation debate.  A lot. 

My rule is:  You can remove or ad as deemed necessary, but you cannot change what you choose to include, unless purely for the sake of combining content to save time. 

I can absolutely understand why they left out Tom Bombadil.

It took me a while to come to terms with it (because at first I associated it with the general requirement that a main protagonist's love interest be a major component of the story which I saw as major selling out), but I came to agree with the decision to give Arwen a larger role in the story, inserting her in scenes she didn't belong.  It allowed the audience to be aware of something that was important to the story, but was only understood through footnotes in the books.  I learned to appreciate the presence of the elves at Helm's Deep for similar reasons.

Arbitrarily changing the basic nature of every single character and the underlying themes and purposes of the story in the process, on the other hand, is completely inexcusable.  The final straw was when he changed the way gollum died for absolutely no reason, which completely undermined what I've always seen as the primary theme of Tolkien's entire legendarium.  (Good does not triumph over evil.  Evil destroys itself.) 

I have yet to see an explanation via adaptation which excuses every single character being a reluctant hero rather than daunted but fully understanding their duty, or why the nazgul were reduced to bumbling idiotic creatures that can be defeated by waving a flaming stick at them, or why Eowyn's defeat of the witch king was made to look almost like an accident, or why Gollum has to be thrown into the crack of doom in a scuffle instead of dancing over the edge with joy, or why Frodo has to look like he's on the verge of tears in every single scene (even the happy ones!), or why Faramir's character was completely reversed in almost every possible way, etc.  These things have absolutely nothing to do with film vs literature and everything to do with hollywood and appealing to masses.  Many of the explanations from Jackson and his supporters have to do with increasing dramatic tensions because Tolkien was too boring.  Well if that's how they really felt, then why the fucking hell did they bother doing an adaptation?!

And no... Peter Jackson promised a lot more than "I'll do my best".  I read The Hobbit in first grade.  It was the first novel I ever read.  I was raised on Tolkien, and was incredibly excited about the movies and followed their development closely.  I saw multiple interviews with Peter Jackson and those working with him proclaiming him the ultimate Tolkien fan and super dedicated to being faithful to the story.  Epic lies.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"Every" character being made into a reluctant hero? That's absurd. Of the Fellowship, Only Aragorn, Boromir, and Gandalf embraced "destiny" in the book. Frodo never really wanted adventure despite his occasional wanderlust, going only becuase he felt he had to. Meriadoc, Peregrin, and especially Samwise went only because Frodo was going. Legolas and Gimili went along to represent Elves and Dwarves, not becuase they were destined for heroism. In the Movie, Boromir and Gandalf still embrace their Destiny, and are almost unchanged. Elrond was changed a lot, but his destiny and that of the Elves was always to leave Middle Earth, they just tarried long enough to usher in the Fourth Age and defeat the Enemy. The movie version was just more willing to leave.

The one time in the films that Nazgul were defeated by "waving a flaming stick at them" in the films, they were driven off in almost the exact same way in the book. Far more of an annoyance was Frodo's behavior in that scene. In the book, he survived only because of unexpected courage. Because he cried out the name of Elbereth and attacked, the morgul-blade missed it;s mark. In the movies, they stabbed him in the shoulder on purpose.

Faramir is a case where the change was an annoyance. That said, the essential difference between him and his brother is difficult to portray in any medium, and film one of the worst. Much more so in the much more jaded era when the films came out. Faramir's lines from the book would more typically be used by a smug hypocrite today.

Eowyn's scene didn't look like an accident at all. I don't see where you're coming from at all. The main change in that scene was that it was much, much faster than the book, because the book version would have looked ridiculous on screen.

Spoiler: Epic Spoiler Battle! (click to show/hide)

Ok, I'll be a little more fair about the reluctant hero thing. 

Gimli and Legolas were alright besides Gimli being stupid comic relief and Legolas being, as The Great Luke Ski described it, "like if Tony Hawk were starring in The Legend of Zelda."  It was kind of silly, but forgivable.  They may have only been there to represent their races, but the emotional investment was clear in the breaking of the fellowship and the bravado dedication was made clear in the kill count contest at the battle of helm's deep.

Boromir was alright, though I felt his stature was unfairly toned down and portrayed too negatively in comparison to the books. 

My main complaint with Gandalf is he was way too aggressively sharp tongued when annoyed with his friends, and they left out his most defining moments which could have easily been included, such as his statement of mourning for the trees which The Watcher used to trap them in Moria (the 2nd most dangerous place in all middle-earth?) which was an incredibly simple and powerful way of showing his age, perspective, and calm. 

Pippin and Merry were... well they were faithful but felt overly charicatured. 

Samwise didn't get nearly enough credit as a heroic character.  I honestly believe Sam to be the most heroic character in the books, not in deeds but in qualities.

Frodo was kind of reluctant, but as I recall he did take after Bilbo more than the movies gave him credit for and was not nearly so wimpy about his task.  I certainly didn't imagine him as looking like a deer in headlights in every single scene.

Theoden was another character that really bothered me.  There was the whole magical mind-control thing, which I suppose you could make an argument for as a time-saver.  He also got the reluctant hero treatment, which was a far cry from the book's awakening of Theoden that read something like "Holy shit you're right.  I do still have it in me!  Fetch my sword, I feel like a battle!"

Aragorn's reluctant hero stuff was just absolute BS for reasons I've already detailed, and I can't think of any justification for re-writing his character as such other than to appeal to fake character depth cliches mass audiences would be familiar with.  Also, while he was the greatest of men at that time, that really didn't mean so much in the greater scheme of things in Tolkien's world. 

The most pronounced instance of this is in the fight against the Nazgul on weathertop.  In the books, Aragorn and the hobbits observed a massive lightning storm above weathertop from a couple week's travel away.  They learned later that this was the reason Gandalf didn't meet up with them as promised, because the Nazgul had driven Gandalf away.  To put this in perspective, Gandalf was a maia, which is a celestial being of basically the same order as Sauron himself.  But apparently if Gandalf had bothered to bring a torch, he would have been alright.  Yes, Aragorn does battle with the Nazgul at Weathertop in the books, but it is not nearly so straightforward.  They used fire only to hold the Nazgul at bay, not drive them off completely.  It caused them discomfort and obscured their vision.  It was a mild deterrent.  They allowed themselves to be deterred, because they thought that Frodo's wound would soon have him turned into a wraith and their job would be done.  They just had to wait it out.  This was a miscalculation, and ended with the group managing to escape from the Nazgul at daylight.  The Nazgul screaming in panic and throwing themselves off cliffs in the movie is just a laughable portrayal by comparison.

Faramir: "But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."  Smug?... I don't see it.  I also don't see anything incredibly complex or nuanced that would be difficult to portray.  In fact, his character should have been one that would take the least amount of time to portray faithfully, and that time could have been used to develop other characters better.  But looking it up now, apparently the official excuses for this are that they actually needed a time waster and found Faramir's original character boring.

Eowyn... I would have to re-read that scene and re-watch the clip to detail.  This was one my mom was furious about, because she found this portrayal of a female character to be incredibly progressive and inspiring.  Ever since she was little, she'd found Eowyn's bold and dramatic slaying of the Witch King to be one of her favorite moments in literature, and she was really disappointed with the movie's portrayal, where she appeared to barely maintain her composure enough to participate in the fight.

It has been about 10 years since I last read LotR, so the books were fairly fresh in my mind when the movies were first released.  Plus my mom re-read each book before watching its film version, so I was able to compare observations with her.  As such, I remember my complaints well, but the details in support of them are a bit fuzzier.

[Interus]

I kind of want to read the Lord of the rings books now.  I already did once, but almost nothing sticks to my mind.  Although it's the same with the movies too(and I think I've seen all of them twice).  I can remember seeing parts, and I can remember reading parts, but I don't know how any of them link together.  It's like the whole thing just slips from my mind, except for one part about Frodo and Sam climbing some really steep stairs and then fighting a giant spider.

Right now I'm trying to read an Assassin's Creed book(the first of two that I got for Christmas) but its pretty boring since the only parts that haven't paralleled events in Assasin's Creed 2 are parts that you experience in flashbacks in Brotherhood.  The second one might be ok, since I never beat Brotherhood, but judging by how crappy these feel, I'm guessing I'd be better off waiting until I can play the game again to see the end.  I also tried to read The Shattering, a WoW book which I heard is pretty good, but I couldn't get past the first few pages.  I might try it again, but since I quit playing before Cataclysm, I doubt I care much about what leads up to it.

I'd like to reread what I've read of The Wheel of Time and then read the ones I haven't gotten to yet.  I might try to reread the Hunger Games series, since that one was fun.  And I might also try to reread Let The Right One In, because the scariest character in the book is barely relevant in both movies.  I don't know what other books I want to read though.  I don't read as often as I used to.

[Haschel]

-Assassin's Creed snip-

Spoiler: Slight rant, I can't help it (click to show/hide)

Don't mean to derail this into games, but I literally just finished Brotherhood, closed the game and checked DF threads and found this. I can't just ignore it under those circumstances, but I'll try to be brief. I liked the games for the fluid movement and battle system, there's just something cool about scaling buildings while fleeing a crime scene, and utterly dominating hordes of soldiers with a few well timed actions. With that said, I started face-palming my way through the series near the end of the first game, and continued to do so with even more force by the end of the second game. Maybe some people can handle how utterly bizarre the story is, but I just can't take this seriously. I've read, watched, and played lots of peculiar things but Assassin's Creed's plot pains me in ways I can't explain. I guess it's just the mixture of Religious junk with "magic" junk that kills me.(Not really magic, I'm just trying not to spoil anything)

To counter that and put things back-on-track, I'm currently reading(with what time I can spare anyway) Monsters of Men by Patrick Ness. It's... A peculiar series. The best way to sum up the series as a whole is "everything goes wrong". The author is constantly giving you hope, only to throw it on the ground and curb-stomp it into a gory mess. Ok, it isn't quite that graphic, but people (and things) die. In sad, bad ways. So why am I reading it? Read a couple chapters of the first book, and you might see why I was interested. The style of dialogue was really unique to me, and the general setting of the book was pretty interesting.

Poo Todd?

[Lord Shonus]

Spoiler: Epic rant about adaptations (click to show/hide)

Meh... I disagree with most people about the adaptation debate.  A lot. 

My rule is:  You can remove or ad as deemed necessary, but you cannot change what you choose to include, unless purely for the sake of combining content to save time. 

I can absolutely understand why they left out Tom Bombadil.

It took me a while to come to terms with it (because at first I associated it with the general requirement that a main protagonist's love interest be a major component of the story which I saw as major selling out), but I came to agree with the decision to give Arwen a larger role in the story, inserting her in scenes she didn't belong.  It allowed the audience to be aware of something that was important to the story, but was only understood through footnotes in the books.  I learned to appreciate the presence of the elves at Helm's Deep for similar reasons.

Arbitrarily changing the basic nature of every single character and the underlying themes and purposes of the story in the process, on the other hand, is completely inexcusable.  The final straw was when he changed the way gollum died for absolutely no reason, which completely undermined what I've always seen as the primary theme of Tolkien's entire legendarium.  (Good does not triumph over evil.  Evil destroys itself.) 

I have yet to see an explanation via adaptation which excuses every single character being a reluctant hero rather than daunted but fully understanding their duty, or why the nazgul were reduced to bumbling idiotic creatures that can be defeated by waving a flaming stick at them, or why Eowyn's defeat of the witch king was made to look almost like an accident, or why Gollum has to be thrown into the crack of doom in a scuffle instead of dancing over the edge with joy, or why Frodo has to look like he's on the verge of tears in every single scene (even the happy ones!), or why Faramir's character was completely reversed in almost every possible way, etc.  These things have absolutely nothing to do with film vs literature and everything to do with hollywood and appealing to masses.  Many of the explanations from Jackson and his supporters have to do with increasing dramatic tensions because Tolkien was too boring.  Well if that's how they really felt, then why the fucking hell did they bother doing an adaptation?!

And no... Peter Jackson promised a lot more than "I'll do my best".  I read The Hobbit in first grade.  It was the first novel I ever read.  I was raised on Tolkien, and was incredibly excited about the movies and followed their development closely.  I saw multiple interviews with Peter Jackson and those working with him proclaiming him the ultimate Tolkien fan and super dedicated to being faithful to the story.  Epic lies.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"Every" character being made into a reluctant hero? That's absurd. Of the Fellowship, Only Aragorn, Boromir, and Gandalf embraced "destiny" in the book. Frodo never really wanted adventure despite his occasional wanderlust, going only becuase he felt he had to. Meriadoc, Peregrin, and especially Samwise went only because Frodo was going. Legolas and Gimili went along to represent Elves and Dwarves, not becuase they were destined for heroism. In the Movie, Boromir and Gandalf still embrace their Destiny, and are almost unchanged. Elrond was changed a lot, but his destiny and that of the Elves was always to leave Middle Earth, they just tarried long enough to usher in the Fourth Age and defeat the Enemy. The movie version was just more willing to leave.

The one time in the films that Nazgul were defeated by "waving a flaming stick at them" in the films, they were driven off in almost the exact same way in the book. Far more of an annoyance was Frodo's behavior in that scene. In the book, he survived only because of unexpected courage. Because he cried out the name of Elbereth and attacked, the morgul-blade missed it;s mark. In the movies, they stabbed him in the shoulder on purpose.

Faramir is a case where the change was an annoyance. That said, the essential difference between him and his brother is difficult to portray in any medium, and film one of the worst. Much more so in the much more jaded era when the films came out. Faramir's lines from the book would more typically be used by a smug hypocrite today.

Eowyn's scene didn't look like an accident at all. I don't see where you're coming from at all. The main change in that scene was that it was much, much faster than the book, because the book version would have looked ridiculous on screen.

Spoiler: Epic Spoiler Battle! (click to show/hide)

Ok, I'll be a little more fair about the reluctant hero thing. 

Gimli and Legolas were alright besides Gimli being stupid comic relief and Legolas being, as The Great Luke Ski described it, "like if Tony Hawk were starring in The Legend of Zelda."  It was kind of silly, but forgivable.  They may have only been there to represent their races, but the emotional investment was clear in the breaking of the fellowship and the bravado dedication was made clear in the kill count contest at the battle of helm's deep.

Boromir was alright, though I felt his stature was unfairly toned down and portrayed too negatively in comparison to the books. 

My main complaint with Gandalf is he was way too aggressively sharp tongued when annoyed with his friends, and they left out his most defining moments which could have easily been included, such as his statement of mourning for the trees which The Watcher used to trap them in Moria (the 2nd most dangerous place in all middle-earth?) which was an incredibly simple and powerful way of showing his age, perspective, and calm. 

Pippin and Merry were... well they were faithful but felt overly charicatured. 

Samwise didn't get nearly enough credit as a heroic character.  I honestly believe Sam to be the most heroic character in the books, not in deeds but in qualities.

Frodo was kind of reluctant, but as I recall he did take after Bilbo more than the movies gave him credit for and was not nearly so wimpy about his task.  I certainly didn't imagine him as looking like a deer in headlights in every single scene.

Theoden was another character that really bothered me.  There was the whole magical mind-control thing, which I suppose you could make an argument for as a time-saver.  He also got the reluctant hero treatment, which was a far cry from the book's awakening of Theoden that read something like "Holy shit you're right.  I do still have it in me!  Fetch my sword, I feel like a battle!"

Aragorn's reluctant hero stuff was just absolute BS for reasons I've already detailed, and I can't think of any justification for re-writing his character as such other than to appeal to fake character depth cliches mass audiences would be familiar with.  Also, while he was the greatest of men at that time, that really didn't mean so much in the greater scheme of things in Tolkien's world. 

The most pronounced instance of this is in the fight against the Nazgul on weathertop.  In the books, Aragorn and the hobbits observed a massive lightning storm above weathertop from a couple week's travel away.  They learned later that this was the reason Gandalf didn't meet up with them as promised, because the Nazgul had driven Gandalf away.  To put this in perspective, Gandalf was a maia, which is a celestial being of basically the same order as Sauron himself.  But apparently if Gandalf had bothered to bring a torch, he would have been alright.  Yes, Aragorn does battle with the Nazgul at Weathertop in the books, but it is not nearly so straightforward.  They used fire only to hold the Nazgul at bay, not drive them off completely.  It caused them discomfort and obscured their vision.  It was a mild deterrent.  They allowed themselves to be deterred, because they thought that Frodo's wound would soon have him turned into a wraith and their job would be done.  They just had to wait it out.  This was a miscalculation, and ended with the group managing to escape from the Nazgul at daylight.  The Nazgul screaming in panic and throwing themselves off cliffs in the movie is just a laughable portrayal by comparison.

Faramir: "But fear no more! I would not take this thing, if it lay by the highway. Not were Minas Tirith falling in ruin and I alone could save her, so, using the weapon of the Dark Lord for her good and my glory. No, I do not wish for such triumphs, Frodo son of Drogo."  Smug?... I don't see it.  I also don't see anything incredibly complex or nuanced that would be difficult to portray.  In fact, his character should have been one that would take the least amount of time to portray faithfully, and that time could have been used to develop other characters better.  But looking it up now, apparently the official excuses for this are that they actually needed a time waster and found Faramir's original character boring.

Eowyn... I would have to re-read that scene and re-watch the clip to detail.  This was one my mom was furious about, because she found this portrayal of a female character to be incredibly progressive and inspiring.  Ever since she was little, she'd found Eowyn's bold and dramatic slaying of the Witch King to be one of her favorite moments in literature, and she was really disappointed with the movie's portrayal, where she appeared to barely maintain her composure enough to participate in the fight.

It has been about 10 years since I last read LotR, so the books were fairly fresh in my mind when the movies were first released.  Plus my mom re-read each book before watching its film version, so I was able to compare observations with her.  As such, I remember my complaints well, but the details in support of them are a bit fuzzier.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Comic relief Gimli was irritating as hell, but the rest was portrayed very well. The anguish portrayed by Bloom and Davies in the first movie at the abduction was perfect.

Boromir had just about as much "face time" in both, and many of his lines were straight from the books, if jumbled. If anything the portrayal is slightly more positive, since they cut out all his "Let's go to Gondor. Why aren't we headed straght to Gondor? Gondor's that way" prattle and most of his bragging.

Gandalf was always sharp-tounged in the books. I never even noticed the lack of the mourning for the trees. I was too annoyed that Frodo figured out the riddle of the gates.

Merry and Pippin were cairiacatures in the book as well, at least until Rivendell, and probably until Fangorn.

I get your meaning about Frodo, it just isn't that severe to me.

I wouldn't call Theodin's treatment the "reluctant hero thing." He was no less reluctant to go to war in the books, after all. The big problem in that scene is Aragorn. Theodin does the right thing by putting his people in a nigh-impregnable fortress. Aragorn's "plan" (a suicidal frontal assault) was sheer idiocy.

Faramir's line works in the book, because the readers expect a more idealistic tone by then, the seductive nature of the ring is slower and more subtle than in the film, and, most importantly of all, it's written. A line like that would be very difficult to pull of in film without sounding smug or sueish. "Don't worry! The thing that even wise Gandalf and Elf-Lords fear to touch is nothing to me, because I'm to honest for it to work!"

Sam's heroic traits and good hobbit-sense were shown pretty well in the film, I think. His speech at the end of Two Towers is a good example..

On Aragorn we are in complete agreement.

[Ephemeriis]

If Dune was a turn-off, go ahead and ignore everything else in the series.

I liked it, I just lost the book a couple times so it was disjointed. And half of the organizations and people (mentats, Bene Gesserit, Fremen etc etc) are never properly explained so I'm running on half comprehension and half of what they do is poorly explained or simply thrown out there with no support.

In short, I need more detail.

And the ending was pretty WTF? Time to go buy the next one.

Everything is explained more than sufficiently.  All of it.  Who people are, who the various organizations are, what's going on, who is plotting against who...  The problem is that it's all twisted together and buried.  Nothing is delivered as clearly as "Mentats do this" - instead, you get bits and pieces about where Mentats came from, why they're important, what makes them tick...  And eventually you know that "Mentats do this".

But, again, it is all twisted together and buried.  There's got to be about 12 different plots going on at once.

I felt much the same way you did the first time I read Dune.  Then I read it again, and again.  It makes more sense every time.  I understand a little more every time.  I'm still finding new things every time I read it.

I don't know if that's the sign of a good author, or a terrible one...  But it's entertaining, at least.

I kind of want to read the Lord of the rings books now.  I already did once, but almost nothing sticks to my mind.  Although it's the same with the movies too(and I think I've seen all of them twice).  I can remember seeing parts, and I can remember reading parts, but I don't know how any of them link together.  It's like the whole thing just slips from my mind, except for one part about Frodo and Sam climbing some really steep stairs and then fighting a giant spider.

Everyone loves the LotR books.  And I'm a D&D geek.  So, of course, I had to read them.

Couldn't do it.  Made it part-way through the first book and gave up.  Horrible writing style.  Just couldn't stand it.

Then the movies came out...  Looked absolutely awesome...  Thought I must have just been too young to appreciate the books, or I was being nitpicky, or something...  So I tried again.  Made it a little further before I had to give up.

I simply cannot stand Tolkein's writing style.

I'd like to reread what I've read of The Wheel of Time and then read the ones I haven't gotten to yet.

Jordan lost me on the WoT books a while back.  After a full novel or two of absolutely nothing happening, I gave up.  I mean...  They're interesting enough to read...  But we jump back and forth between people planning a wedding and folks wandering the countryside and some scheming and whatnot...  For a couple books.  And the storyline just doesn't advance.  There's several books I haven't read, and I just don't care.

My own rant: Watchmen. The entire production cast was adamant about changing it as little as possible, then of the three major changes, two were flagrantly unnecessary. Dan and Laurie fighting the muggers... movie added gore for its' own sake. They weren't brutal vigilantes, just people in decent shape that were defnding themselves. Rorschach tearing up the pedophile just made him seem like a psychopath. Character derail.

I thoroughly enjoyed the Watchmen comics.  Re-read them right before seeing the movie.

The movie was definitely entertaining.  And Rorschach was a bit of a psychopath.

But I was genuinely offended with how they changed the ending.  Changes the tone of the whole story.

Similarly...  The Mist by Stephen King.  One of my favorite short stories of all time.  The story ends with a few people in a car driving through the mist.  They're stopping periodically to gas-up or sleep or whatnot.  It's been days.  There's no sign of it ending.  The world has been permanently changed.  I always kind of thought, in the back of my mind, that the stars were finally right and the Old Ones had awoken.

The movie, however, paints it like some kind of military fuckup.  It ends with the mist clearing out and the military guys shooting the monsters.  Normalcy is restored.

Completely changes the story.

[Lord Shonus]

To be fair, it's pretty explicitly a military fuckup in the short story too.

[freeformschooler]

I'm reading a book about the philosophy of coffee, and how coffee relates to philosophy.

This is my ideal summer reading.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

To be fair, it's pretty explicitly a military fuckup in the short story too.

It's hinted that it might be a military fuckup, to the point where at least two soilders kill themselves out of the belief that Project Arrowhead is behind the mist's appearance. There are other potential explanations available, the most horrible of which is that Carmody's group is right, and a blood sacrifice will stop the mist.

[Burnt Pies]

I first read Dune when I was about 12, due to picking up the Dune RTS which came out at around the same time as RA2.

What a mistake to make. I've never been great at picking up subtle hints and beating around the bush, and I had to sit and think about what happened to figure it out when I read the series again last year. As a 12 year old, it was a fairly slow sci-fi war story with a lot of people with odd names.

The prequel stories, those not written by Frank Herbert himself are much more straightforward. I would've enjoyed them a lot more at that age; the Great Jihad series especially are a fairly enjoyable set of sci-fi war stories, and the politics in them isn't too hard to figure out, and if it is, it can be ignored until explosions happen.

As for the Wheel of Time, it really does slow down later on in comparison to the first few books. Compared to the whirlwind of world saving in book 1, the rest of the series has about enough content for maybe 3 or 4 books. Not 10, or however many there are.

[bitterhorn]

I'm reading a book about the philosophy of coffee, and how coffee relates to philosophy.

This is my ideal summer reading.

This is relevant to my interests as well.  What's it called?

[Ephemeriis]

To be fair, it's pretty explicitly a military fuckup in the short story too.

It is strongly hinted that Project Arrowhead is to blame.  Strongly enough that a couple soldiers kill themselves.

But Ms. Carmandy there thinks it's judgement day, and she's certain enough to start killing people.

And while those two opinions are portrayed in the movie...  We're all-but told "yup, the military did it."  Ms. Carmandy is basically made out to be a nutcase with no bearing on reality.  While, in the book, it's much easier to believe that she might be right.

Regardless, my problem isn't so much with who started it, but with how it ends.

In the movie, this is just another military fuckup.  Something went wrong, people died, and then it got fixed - life goes on.  No different than if they'd accidentally detonated a nuclear bomb up at Project Arrowhead.  No different than any cheesy sci-fi movie where some scientist meddles in things best left alone and unleashes something nasty that rampages through the countryside until it is eventually killed or contained.

In the story, however, it's strongly suggested that the world has been fundamentally changed.

Sure, it just ends with them driving off into the mist...  It's possible that right after that last page the military shows up and saves the day...  But they've been driving through the mist for days, maybe weeks.  They aren't seeing any signs of hope or resistance.  The mist is everywhere.  The monsters are everywhere.  The time of man may very well be at an end.

[ChairmanPoo]

The prequel stories, those not written by Frank Herbert himself are much more straightforward. I would've enjoyed them a lot more at that age; the Great Jihad series especially are a fairly enjoyable set of sci-fi war stories, and the politics in them isn't too hard to figure out, and if it is, it can be ignored until explosions happen.

Wait, WHAT?!?!

The prequels are some of the silliest books I've ever read. And that's even without taking the original in mind. By themselves, and ignoring anything FH wrote, they suck donkey socks.

(If you actually read -and liked, that is*- the original Dune, it's even worse)

*Not that disliking the original would make these seem better, mind you.

[Burnt Pies]

They're a series of explosions with other things in between. I class this as more straightforward.

I'm saying nothing about quality, I'm saying a 12 year old me would've enjoyed them more than Dune's complicatedness. Current me enjoys both, because he never really grew up, but understands more.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And while those two opinions are portrayed in the movie...  We're all-but told "yup, the military did it."  Ms. Carmandy is basically made out to be a nutcase with no bearing on reality.  While, in the book, it's much easier to believe that she might be right.

I thought Carmody being right was easier to believe in the movie than the book. Carmody wants to sacrifice the kid to end the mist. The protagonist kills the remainder of his group because they've run out of options, and that includes killing his son. Not five seconds after the kid dies does the millitary come running out of the Mist with hazmat suits and flamethrowers.

[freeformschooler]

I'm reading a book about the philosophy of coffee, and how coffee relates to philosophy.

This is my ideal summer reading.

This is relevant to my interests as well.  What's it called?

Here you go. I found it at the library, so yours might have it too, if you have a library.