Batman

yeah I have, it's great

So just to be clear then, you were being sarcastic when you said all movies were better than books right? Because that wouldn't fit with your theory that you can't compare different mediums. Embarrassed that the joke went over my head at first

I thought Joe's son was at Washington?

Wow, I've never even heard of that project, but reading the wikipedia convinced me I have to check it out. They got quite the crew of guest singers!

and to all those who don't care about this discussion, I'll get back on topic for a moment: Just saw Inception. Like many summer blockbusters, it had a few problems (the message wasn't very profound, no feeling of connection to the very hollow characters), but it's easy to look past those things because the movie is incredibly entertaining. It's really fun to watch how Nolan weaves all the threads together. The whole last hour of the movie is like watching a jigsaw falling into place (thanks Radiohead!). Plus, you know a movie's good when the entire theatre audience spends the whole movie paralyzed in suspense and immediately starts swearing loudly after the last shot. I'll give it a 9/10. It was great fun to watch, but it wasn't quite as good as reading "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas."

I will admit I've never seen a movie that successfully emulated the drug experience, but my problem with Fear and Loathing was that it seemed like emulating the drug experience was one of Gilliam's main goals in making the film. Or at least there were a lot of scenes where that was the only point. For instance, when Duke checks into the hotel and gets freaked out by the woman at the desk, most of the scene is shots of the woman's face distorting and becoming a dinosaur, and I didn't think that the scene evoked the feelings of Duke's fear well enough because it was just too silly. It seemed in many of the scenes that Gilliam was more interested in emulating the drug experience than furthering the plot or building the characters or evoking a feeling in the way I like movies to do. It's different than something like "Requiem for a Dream" where the point isn't for the viewer to feel "druggy," the drugs are just what the plot and characters are built around. And although I usually like movies more than books, your reasoning for why movies are better seems to me like a good argument for the superiority of books. I don't think either art form is inherently better than the other, but one of the big advantages of books over movies is that you have to fill in the blanks with your own imagination, so a book is more accessible because you can build certain aspects of the book the way you think it should be. I find that reading a book is almost always a more personalized experience than watching a movie. Looking back at your post, that's actually pretty much exactly what you said. So why do you think a more personal experience with a work of art is a bad thing? Just because a movie is less personal doesn't mean it appeals to a wider (worldwider! that should be a word) audience. On the contrary, wouldn't a book appeal to a wider audience because it leaves more room for interpretation?

Ha ha, great video. The Godard and Wes Anderson ones were my favorites. I might start with Nosferatu, because I really enjoyed the silent film Nosferatu.

I never said that. I just don't think they successfully emulated the drug experience, and it seemed to me like that's what they were trying to do. I'm not trying to write a review here, I'm just giving advice to people who either have seen or are interested in seeing Fear and Loathing. I think watching and reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are fairly similar experiences, except for one is much more enjoyable than the other. I think sometimes the distinctions people make between different kinds of art are too big, and it's more fun to react to art on an emotional level than going through a checklist of the aspects of good art. I guess some people probably prefer the latter though, and that's fine.

Yeah, I agree, but Kobe still never had as good a third guy as Bosh

Everyone's getting forgiveness except Barry Bonds, sigh.

Someone read Bill Simmons recently, ha ha. It's totally true though. Honestly I think from here on out, once their careers are over, Lebron will have to match Kobe's championships. The argument that Lebron didn't win a championship with the Cavs because he didn't have the supporting talent was a fair argument I suppose, but now that he's able to craft this dream team with 3 top 10 players on it, there will be no excuse for him to retire with less championships than Kobe (except the excuse that he isn't as good as Kobe, which remains to be seen imo).

Well I think this Heat team needs to win at least two championships over the next six years for the "Lebron is better than Kobe" talk to have legitimacy. Kobe never had as good a #2 and 3 as Lebron has with Wade and Bosh right now.

Man, after Lebron's whole "decision" special, I've never seen public opinion on an athlete change so drastically so quickly. It seems like in one hour he went from everyone's favorite athlete to the most despised celebrity on the planet.

Ah, well upon this explanation, I agree with you. I guess I don't think that the movie is bad because the book is so good, I think the movie is bad and the book is so good. My lower rating the 2nd time I saw Fear and Loathing is probably more due to the movie's lack of re-watch-ability. Now that I think about it...the first time I watched Fear and Loathing I had never tried any drugs before, so I thought it watching the movie was a very interesting experience because the shots emulated their drug trips so well (or so I thought). Now that I've tried some drugs, just watching two guys take a bunch of drugs in Las Vegas isn't very interesting to me anymore. What's interesting to me is Hunter s. Thompson's (the character and the author) analysis of what he is seeing. A good example is when he describes the main floor of the casino as "what the whole world would be doing every Saturday night if the Nazis won the war."

If a book and a movie share the same plot, characters, and dialogue, they have enough in common that they can be compared. Continuing with my use of "Fear and Loathing..." as an example, if you are watching a film about Hunter S. Thompson and his attorney going to Las Vegas to write a story on a car race but ending up having a huge drug binge while they search for the American dream, and you have recently read a book about Hunter S. Thompson and his attorney going to Las Vegas to write a story on a car race but ending up having a huge drug binge while they search for the American dream, you will naturally compare the two whether you want to or not, especially if the dialogue is almost exactly the same. It's just inevitable. Your expectations are higher. And it's a useful comparison to make, because if someone watches the movie and says, "I don't like it," you can say, "read the book, it's better."

yeah I think that was the dullest game I watched in the cup. I didn't watch every game though.

But you should only compare things that are different. If you compare things that are the same, there's nothing to compare. I think if a movie is based on a book, it totally makes sense to compare the two. Could you hear a cover of a song without thinking about the original? But I do agree with you when you say the whole thing about being "faithful" to the book is unnecesarry. Some films are completely different from the books they're based on, and are much better for it. I think instead of asking "did the film stay faithful to the book?" people should ask "did the book translate well into a film?" or just "is the film good?" "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" stayed faithful to the book, but I would say it didn't translate well because films tend to be more action-based than books, and the action in the plot isn't very interesting. This isn't a problem in the book, though, because Thompson's writing is so good. The storytelling is great, but the story itself is average.

Also, any fan of Outkast needs to check out Big Boi's new album. Stands right up there with Speakerboxxx, Stankonia, and ATLiens for me.

I've kinda moved away from rock in the past few years. I still like a lot of it though, BSS is pretty high on my list. I still like the rock that has lotsa soul

here's my favorite from the Flying Lotus album And here's my favorite from the Onra album. While many "80s revivalists" like to be goofy and poke fun at the 80s cheesiness, Onra just takes the sleek funkiness of smooth 80s dance music and mixes that style of songwriting with J Dilla-esque leftfield hip hop. Sorry about the indie-buzzword overload there, but it's really worth checking out if you like your hip hop covered in butter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4D2IN3RVFI

Me too, it gives us all more to check out!

Here's a Bar Kays song I love called "Running In and Out of my Life" Hey Bazooka, do you have any suggestions on a good Isley Brothers album? I really like "Who's that Lady" and "Between the Sheets"

both are fruits, why not compare them?

I think I posted a Delorean song on the first page of this thread, that one is definitely worth checking out. Flying Lotus I would also highly reccomend. It's an experimental hip hop/electronic album with the spirit (although not always the sound) of the more avant-garde leaning jazz of the 70s. You couldn't really call it "free jazz" or something, but it was definitely influenced by the likes of Sun Ra. Good stuff! And Crystal Castles is halloween on record. Good call on the Sleigh Bells album, one of the loudest albums I've heard in a long time. I think this has been a pretty awesome year so far. Aside from the ones I mentioned, I've also really enjoyed the albums from Guilty Simpson, Apples in Stereo, Fang Island, Gorillaz, Jay Electronica, Mux Mool, and Surfer Blood. I still have a lot to check out too.

just read this whole conversation. Funny timing for me to make that last post! I stand by my point though. I really just didn't like hte movie as much after reading the book.