LearnHub

lechuck agreed:

Well here is the thing, at least I found this with me. When you take a classic, like Lord of the Rings, that has been around for longer than most of us have been born… and it invented all this fantasy stuff that roams around the media world now a days. Everyones take on the book, everyones mind visions Lord of the Rings differently, and the imagination of it was half the charm. The way I visioned the characters in my head, may be different than the way you saw them, or someone else saw them and the movies, while I thought were great and a hell of a ride, wasn’t my view of the book. The orcs, the characters all looked, sounded, acted differently. In no way could it compete with the vision I have in my head. That is why the book will always be better, and why books will always be better than the ripped movies. We just saw Peter Jacksons vision of his book.

I’ll always bee a avid fan of the original medium of the story. It’s very rare that I’d rather watch the movie than play the game, or read the book. It works the exact same way with other original mediums. I’d rather watch the movie then read a book based off a movie, or a game based off it.

oLahav agreed with:

The original medium usually is the best, I have to agree. But not always… for example, taking the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, I found the original radio scripts a bit less funny than the novels. I think sometimes it takes a while and a few tries to get something right, you know what I mean?

I totally support your “views” theory… especially with the LOTR. The movie’s Gandalf was a lot freakier than I imagined, and the elves and dwarfs were just not right. On the other hand, their Golum was way better than I could ever have imagined.

You’re also right about games and movies… games and movies shouldn’t mix. There’s about 1 decent movie-based game (Spiderman 2) and 1 decent game-based movie (MK) out there, and that’s it.