"Getting through all five books of the trilogy" is just such a great, and true phrase.

I see you've been alerted to your misinterpretation of Pride and Prejudice already. If you only remember the novel from compulsory high school reading, I can't really blame you, though. The misapprehension that Pride and Prejudice (the novel) is supposed to be a rom-com is about as common as the belief that Romeo and Juliet is a play about true love. While Pride and Prejudice did provide us with a very popular rom-com premise (the couple that starts out seemingly hating each other), the original story is not SUPPOSED to be about two people having great chemistry and following their hearts. It's about a woman who, once she gets over her stubborn first impression of a man, finds the best possible match in the ruthless marriage market: a rich man she can love (who's probably more in love with her than she is with him).

The only reason I started reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was because I loved the movie so much, but the books were infinitely better.

I have never wanted to raid somebody's bookcase as much as yours right now...

This comment section is downright sad, I feel like most here completely missed the part where you boldly explain how this is just your opinion. And even though I don't agree with all of it, the opinions are expressed so well that you can be damn sure I'll respect them. Great video man.

I'm sorry you didn't like P&P. I read it at 15 and it changed my whole attitude about relationships, societal norms and expectations, and how people can use self-awareness and introspection to change themselves for the better. It also has a lot of wit and offers a satirical perspective towards the pompous, the narcissists, and the arrogant who still are way too prevalent today.

"I am a rational creature, I am a rational creature..." I repeat to myself while trying to repress these violent urges from hearing my dearest Jane being treated in such an ungentlemanlike manner.

AHHHHHHH, I am so with you on almost all of this list, but I VEHEMENTLY disagree on Pride and Prejudice. I LOVE THAT BOOK!!! LOVE. As in, read almost every year. The movie was good as a stand-alone work, and I wouldn't necessarily say the book was BETTER (since they're good in different ways for different reasons), but there were a lot of things that the movie either changed or totally ignored that were key buildups in the book, and so having read the book the payoffs in the movie felt cheaper and less poignant. But to say that the book is BORING?? I just... I can't even... understand how someone (at least someone intelligent, which you clearly are) would think that lol. Do you hate period novels in general, or just P&P in particular? This actually makes me want to re-read it haha

I loved the Count of Monte Cristo in book form, the movie seemed too short for what the book offered.

Pride and Prejudice and you pick the 2005 movie? If you want to judge literature and screen versions, go for the BBC miniseries. The movie is ok, it was my introduction to Jane Austen, so I can't really complain about it and it has some really good scenes. Plus the ost is good. But overall, it's not enough, too many scenes were changed to really make it good. The miniseries is waaaay better. In my opinion it's a bit too rushed in the end, but overall, it's a really good adaptation. Like other said, PP isn't primarily a romance, it's a commentary and portrayal of Austen's society. In this way, it's an amazing study. The romance is just sort of by-product that helps Austen show the society.

"Now, don't get me wrong, Moby Dick is a great book - especially if you enjoy chapter long Segways on how to remove the head of a whale." *twitch*

The second you said "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" I was just like "Oh no, he didn't!" But it's okay. I accept that you're opinion differs from mine. Of course mine is better :-)

Pride and Prejudice is a brilliant comedy book, but the 2005 film??? Why ??????? The 1995 mini series is most definitely the best adaptation

Hitchhiker's, really? The funniest thing about that series is the writing style. You can't really translate the best parts into movie form. You say it's on here because it condensed the series down into one movie, but most of the content of the movie is taken only from the first book.

I agree with everything - mostly interview with a vampire - except pride and prejudice! I could start ranting now, but I think its a matter of preference. Sometimes books of this era are hard to read through because they don't satisfy our instant need for gratification, that we have developed. They tend to linger on thoughts and emotions and really milk them. I have begun to appreciate that but I can see how it can be annoying as well (it happened to me when reading lord of the rings, when tolkien spends way too much time on details, but i did love the hobbit)

I can't agree about pride and prejudice. I really, really disliked that version. Compared to the 1995 version, I found it very lacking in nuance and detail and, I might add, it was decidedly less historically accurate, something that will greatly detract from my enjoyment of a movie. And it used faaar too many cliches for my taste. The proposal in the rain, Darcy going to see Elizabeth half dressed (as was she), etc. Sorry, but I just couldn't get into it. Though I did like seeing the interpretation of Mr. Collins and the soundtrack was gorgeous. But Colin Firth's Darcy is just so much more believable to me. Oh, one thing I will say for the book: Bingley is fantastic. I liked him in the movie, but in the book, I love the guy. He's so hilariously adorable.

Aw man, you didn't even pick the GOOD Pride & Prejudice!

Nope! I was already on the fence with Pride and Prejudice, but you've committed the irredeemable blasphemy with Hitchikers' Guide to the Galaxy. :)

You mention a lot of movies that are better than the book, however, worse than the tv series. You should really look up Pride and Prejudice (1995) The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (1981) The Count of Monte Cristo (1998) These are some of my favorite series/mini series.

Pride and prejudice man?!?l! In the movie the girls were running around like 3 year-olds, no historical accuracy and love as it is an emotion, which is well depicted in the book, it also affects their actions, why on Earth would be any action in the movie itself, too? But the book shows the underlysing world inside those peoples minds that put those actions into move. And if you wanna see a good movie, than the BBX version that relies heavily on the book yet the actors do a great job playing out the characters that were so wittily portrayed...oh man...

OMG! The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?!? RAGE QUIT!! The movie was rather boring and not at all representative of the book it is named after, imo. The BBC miniseries was much better, if you can suffer through the awful special effects.

I feel like putting Wrath of Kahn is kind of cheating. It's inspired by Moby Dick, along with a multitude of other things. It takes tropes from Moby Dick but ultimately, it's not a clear enough translation to consider one an adaptation of another

They're called 'comedy of manners." a comedy that satirizes behavior in a particular social group, especially the upper classes. These are challenging if you don't understand the mores and pretensions of the historic era.

Ahh. Was just thinking how much I like this guy and his videos, but this one hit a speedhump. He's smart, smart, smart, but he doesn't seem to get British culture at all. And he doesn't seem to get that it's *his* blindspot, not the Brits'.

On Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you make an unfair comparison. Or, should I say, a completely incorrect comparison. The movie wasn't based on all 5 books, it was very clearly just using the 1st book. I agree the later books in the series lose a lot of the original's charm. But compare the movie to the actual book it was based on, the 1st one, and the movie just pales in comparison. Partially because much of the writing defies actual visualization, and a lot of the humor gets lost in doing so. It wasn't a bad movie, but certainly didn't do the book full justice. But more importantly, your complaint seems to stem on the book's sequels, which is *NOT* what the movie was based on. So it's, uh, erroneous. If they made movie sequels to HGthG, they'd probably suffer just as the books did.

Honestly, "Starship Troopers" is worthwhile in both forms. As you mentioned, the movie satirized what the book put forth earnestly, but the *why* of the rationale of the book is just as interesting. Heinlein's underlying theory was that someone enlisting in public service (it wasn't exclusively military in nature - Rico simply looked down on those that didn't opt for military) would curb self-serving politicians by codifying "Service above Self". Realistically, that would *never* work for the reasons shown in the movie, including the one woman who was doing her stint explicitly to qualify for a career as a politician, but the idea itself is interesting. And I'm not sure if this was Heinlein's intent, but when I read the book (after having seen the movie), I thought the situation with the asteroid hitting Buenos Aires was kind of ambiguous in regards to whether it was legitimate or legitimate propaganda.

You really stretched to make The Wrath of Khan seem like it was based off of Moby Dick, didn't you? Starship Troopers is as faithful to the novel just as the Revenant is as faithful to the novel. Both are their own story with the same name tacked on.

Your comparison of "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" is not done fairly. All that should be compared is the first book (the one titled "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy") to the movie (also titled "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy"). It's not even a close contest - the book is so much better than the movie that I feel sorry for anyone who only saw the movie and never read the book, so has no real idea of how funny Douglas Adams was given that the movie cut out most of the humour from the book.

With Hitchhiker's everyone has a preferred medium. The radio show is my favourite .

On Pride and Prejudice, as a fan of the novel and of the BBC miniseries with Jennifer Ehle, I did not see the movie. Simply put, I feel that the movie can not hold a candle to the list of..... insightful and biting commentary of Austen's time. I appreciate there's differences and there is always going to be debate over classics, especially this one. The point of this is that people will argue and continue to argue over this, which is good news from my point of view. It means it's still worth talking about and just maybe, still relevant. As for Starship Troopers. You're wrong, completely, utterly and profoundly wrong. Yes, you can say some of Heinlein's work are obviously political, Starship Troopers mirrors the time it was written, a deep fear of the Reds/Communists, a pervasive feeling of survival against all odds. It needs to be said that these are political models are taken to some extreme lengths. The example given in the book that the difference between the two relates to numbers, is superficial. The depth of the philosophy behind is wonderfully presented. What it means that each cap trooper is a net loss to the Federation as the Bugs can just dial up the next half a dozen hatcheries, just to be sure. You're also forgetting about Stranger in a Strange Land, a book all about how to grok your neighbour. Guess who the author is and when it published? There's plenty to be said for this as well on Starship Troopers. There's alnost nothing to be said against it, in my mind. Assuming you're able to give the book credit and look beyond the obvious military themes, technology and thoughts. Heinlein's Federation is not fascist, not in spirit. Sure, the clues are not really touched on in great depth, but they are there. The book is ultimately about responsibility, responsibility of the state to look after it's people, all its people not just its citizens. It also asks that we accept that the state, as an entity has the right to ask that those who shape it's future, its citizens, have worked and acted in the interest of the state. Verhoeven couldn't even reach the end of Starship Troopers and you think he's got a good idea of the nature of the book?

Clearly you don't get Jane Austen (and neither does the film adaptation) if you think Pride and Prejudice is a romance. Maybe you shouldv'e read it _before_ seeing the film. It's a tongue-in-cheek character study; it's comical and is a great commentary on the absurd social structure of the time, amongst the well-to-do upstairs folk, that is. The "romance" is a by-product and makes for some interesting conflict. But I suppose if Hollywood is to make a film which will sell it had better be classifiable and probably pretty schmaltzy. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is way closer, and understandably so, to the sentiment of the book. Also, standing in front of a bunch of movies while you criticize literature is fairly comical too. Thanks for the laugh.

I wonder how many non-Austen book readers realize that nobody actually kisses at the end of any of the books lol Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that it is a very different expectation than we have of light romantic stories today.

There's a difference between something that is *based on* something vs something that is *adapted from* something. E.g. "The Lion King" is based on the story of "Hamlet". The 1996 "Hamlet" film starring Kenneth Branaugh is adapted from William Shakespeare's stageplay "Hamlet".

-The Mist -Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption -The Green Mile

If you think the horrendously miscast Keira Knightley movie version of P&P is better than the book, you lack cultural and contextual understanding of the book. Although as an American who has no exposure to the culture on which it is based, that much is hardly surprising. Edit to add: the scene you've chosen to represent as an improvement over the source material because it gives you chills is as ridiculous in a film set in that time period as a wristwatch in a film about George Washington would be. Such behaviour would literally never have happened in polite society at the time and for a director to make the scene look like that, with implied sexual tension, shows that he/she didn't understand the book either.

I weirdly agree with your Pride and Prejudice pick. Not that I dislike the original book, but I feel like people are only viciously angry about the 2005 movie because it leaves and alters things. And it's like, what the hell else is an adaptation supposed to do? People say it wastes time on style, but capturing the beauty of the era through cinema is the right way to interpret the beauty of the language in the book. So I'll always like it. Also, I've yet to read Starship Troopers, but I've always known it was significantly different than its book inspiration. Really fascinating to hear the differences between the two.

Aaaa dude really? Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen? Their performance wasn't even to the knees to the one of Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle and rest of that group.

I have Darcy’s proposal from the book memorized,, I can and will say it at any given time

Holy hell, what Starship Troopers did you read?

So. Obviously I'm a little late for the party but I couldn't pass by without leaving my 2cents. I enjoy your blog very much and share many of your opinions but on this we have to agree to disagree. I could leave it at that but I will try and advocate not only one but two of my favorite books: I agree with many of the former comments that your view on P&P is skewed and I ask myself: why? Is it because your knowledge of the historical setting is too little? Or is it maybe because you are a man? Because the central theme of the book is the dependence of women to men. I mean, it is there, in the very first sentence of the book! Without father, brother, husband they will literally be forced out of their home and all female characters in this book know this and try to secure their future and the future of their families. Of course there is romance but the romance is on the back burner and is used to drive the point home: what are you as a woman willing to accept to secure a future? Are you going to be Charlotte? Or are you going to be Elisabeth and risk it all? That said, I hate the movie. I hate it with a passion because the movie takes all this and throws it out of a window to concentrate on the romance and the f***ing male lead saving the day. And I hate it because the director can't be bothered and put a bonnet on Keira Knightlys head or give her an decent haircut. Ugh! Don't let me get started on the men and their pathetic attempt at Regency male attire! This whole thing is the perfect example for Hollywood taking an european classic and using it without understanding it. Please, do yourself a favor and watch the BBC Miniseries of P&P. Then drop me a line and we can discuss the whole thing again. Now, the next one: The count of Monte Christo. I've never read it in english so I have no clue how the translation handles Dumas' peculiar style of writing. In german and french it flows and captures your imagination because the descriptions give life to the Restauration Paris and the tumultuous Politics of the time. Again, is it because the historical circumstances are missing? That said I do understand if it's just not your type of tea and there is nothing wrong with this. But saying the movie is better because it concentrates on one Aspekt and cuts everything superfluous out seems plain lazy to me. And if we have to pic a Count of Monte Christo Movie then it would be the one with Richard Chamberlain! ;-) I would love to read from you! Greetings from Germany!

I - LOVED - THE BOOK - The Count of Monte Cristo. One of my most favorite reading during my teenage years. Just saying.

he's so wrong about the count of monte christo. the movie lacks all the intelligence that made the book so great. the point is not that he takes his revenge but how he does it he uses there own weaknesses against them to makes them destroy themselves.

I love your stuff, but please be advised 'wan' and 'wane' are not interchangeable. Wan means pale or dissolute. Wane means to diminish. Sorry, but you do it a lot.

Apparently you didn't read "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies," pure literary genius I tells ya.

What's funny about this list is that it could just as easily been titled "Books that were too long and/or complicated for me to comprehend"

Sorry, but the Hitchhikers Guide trough the Galaxy was a terrible Movie. In my opinion, the book was way better than the movie.

finding your channel has been the best part of my day! binging your videos and blown away by how articulate, funny, and educated you are! thanks for being an ally!

Hitchhikers movie better than the book? Ok your a little insane

Stephen King's "The Myst" should have been on here. Movie blew it away.

The only case I have found where the movie was better than its source material is Jaws. The book by Benchley is mostly about Brody's wife having an affair with the marine biologist. Spielberg removed that plot altogether and made the story a great creature feature. If you want to read a better version of Jaws in novel form try The Trench by Steven Alten.

Omg I love how you put the hands thingy scene from Pride and Prejudice! I replay that bit again and again and again and so many P&P fans are shook Mr Darcy's hand clench too :O

Pride and prejudice is an amazing book.

+coldcrashpictures There is an issue I have with the final choice of Starship Troopers. Heinlein's ideal in how the government state in Starship Troopers worked, was not mandatory military involvement, but mandatory civil service in some form of government position. This included clerks, teaching, maintenance of utilities, or politics. Also, the screen writer for the movie honestly mentioned that he never fully read the book, just the first few pages. They are indeed their own stories, and quite exclusive, but I'm not sure you got the jist of the book's ideals entirely. Heinlein focussed on both how societies can work, and how they can fail. It is by no means one of his greater works, and it is not as entertaining as, let's say, Moon is a harsh mistress; nor as thought provoking and controversial as Stranger in a strange land. Yet there is parts of it that you have to reconsider and reread. Heinlein may not have been happy with the state of government and where it was headed, but I wouldn't put him under a fascist or fully militaristic way of thinking. Most of the book actually was written in a way that placed war in a very negative light.(granted his later novels like Cat who walks through walls is where you see Heinlein just go into dementia). Still agree that Starship Troopers the movie is a hilarious satire, but I wouldn't write off the book entirely because of perceptions of why or what you think the writer intended.

I was hoping Starship Troopers would be on this list. I would also include Inkheart, which trimmed a lot of fat from the book and took a lot of focus away from Meggie, who was something of a main character in the book, but didn't do anything until the climax.

I calmly and objectively submit that the 1995 BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice is the gold standard and any piffle starring Keira Knightley is not fit to hold its coat.

"You're welcome to disagree with me but you'd be wrong." I am so gonna use this forever!!!!!

@coldcrashpictures Your comparison of Hitchhikers, was quite unfair as you compared 5 books to 1 movie. Yes, books 3, 4, & 5 were not as good as book one, but the movie didn't cover those books. Just because the 5 books get bound together as a collection doesn't mean you compare all 5 books to a movie that poorly covered one of those books. Remind me not to watch any review that might cover the Lord of the Rings, I'd hate to have you tell me that the Fellowship of the Rings movie wasn't as good as the whole trilogy in print format.

Agreed on absolutely everything except Hitchhiker's Guide. Douglas Adams' work is amazing and a treat to read. Anne Rice's work, however, is an utter slog to get through.

I read the Count of Monte Cristo Abridged (about 600-800 pages still) for school last year and it is my favorite book that any of my honors English classes have made me read. Probably my favorite book period, actually.

Starship Troopers would have been so much cooler if Verhoeven had invested some money in representing the armored fighting powered suits, featured in the novel. Still loved the movie anyway.

As far as I can tell, this video is not only wrong but dead wrong, egregiously.

I'm a huge reader and "the book was better" is one of my favorite lines, so seeing your views was interesting. I don't agree with all of your choices (ahem, HG2G, ahem), but am right there with you on Starship Troopers. I saw the movie before reading the book, and one of my friends went on a rant about how they ruined one of his favorites books. I finally got around to reading the book, and hated it, for pretty much the reasons you listed. I would like to add one of my favorite examples of movies that were better than the books: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. Don't bother with the book. It is written as if the subject is serious. The movie, however, takes a ridiculous topic and makes a ridiculous and fun movie. It's not perfect, but it's so much better than the dour slog-fest that was the book.

I'll agree that the 2005 P&P was one of the best film adaptations of classical literature to date. But the book remains a masterpiece. It's somehow held up in relateable wit and societal commentary over the past 200 years with no signs of stopping.

An ante-script kudo: I love your channel; you do a fantastic job. Which is why when I hear you say, "there are no subjective measurements," it makes me perk up. One that springs immediately to mind is the measurement of time between two individuals moving at separate velocities. As one approaches the speed of light, the observer measures the passage of time differently from that of an observer not moving the same way. Hence, subjective measurement. Keep up the great work, though!

STARSHIP TROOPERS??? Are you F**KING KIDDING ME??? Well, this is definitely YOUR opinion, because in MY opinion, that movie was one of the BIGGEST crimes against it's literary source ever in history. The book inspired me, the movie gagged me and sickened me to the core, mainly because it was one of my FAVORITE books and I could not WAIT for it to come out and when it finally did, the ONLY resemblance it had was the names of the characters. The movie was a travesty.

Is that Gilmore Girls I see on you top shelf?

What are some of your book recs @coldcrashpictures???

I've watched several of your videos, and while I agree and disagree with some of your points. I thoroughly enjoy listening to you make them in a well thought out concise way. You sir, have earned a subscriber.

You lost me with Count of Monte Cristo and Starship Troopers!

"Blade Runner" should have been on this list... it was way better than the book it was based on: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"

"Klendathu Drop" One of my favorite pieces of film score. Brilliantly epic. Also one of my favorite films. Verhoven is brilliant!

damn I just found your channel but your stuff is pretty legit. Hope you're still doing these vlogs.

Star Ship Troopers was a great and fun movie, but cannot compare to the book. It's the only piece of Literature that I know of that can make pacifist hippies want to join the army :-) Next thing you're gonna tell us that the Road, the novel, had too negative of an ending.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (from Who Censored Roger Rabbit). The rather thin book nevertheless outstays the welcome for the basic gag of living 'toons, and has an utterly preposterous conclusion. The film does everything much better, even aside from the animation-buff delights like putting Daffy and Donald Duck in a scene together.

I was so excited when you included monte cristo! It's one of my favourite movies but not many people i know have seen it

I get what you're saying about Hitchhiker. The movie was much more tenable than the book. For one, the Trillian character may have been more edgy and bad ass in the novel but she was much more realistic in the movie without necessarily sacrificing the edginess. In the novel I don't think she cared at all that her homeworld had been blown up. Cool, yes, but not very realistic.

I hate to add to the hate. Truly, I do. But when you come after the Pride and Prejudice novel and commend the movie, we are going to have a problem. And I know I know I know it’s opinion, but also it’s kinda not? It’s okay for Pride and Prejudice to not be your thing, but to say that the movie is better just proves that you don’t understand it at all. The book is about psychology. It’s about how characters learn to grow and not rely on first impressions. It’s about a guy who gets called on his rich bullshit and a girl who gets called on being judgmental. The amazing thing about the book is that you can see Elizabeth and Darcy change through their thoughts and emotions. You can see the deep theme that first impressions are no accurate, especially when both parties rely on both pride and prejudice. The movie has none of that. The movie is a dumb romance that relies on its scenery and acting to tell us they are in love instead of explaining it. I recently read an annotated version of the book and looking at how deep their motivations lie truly shows how wonderfully constructed it is. To say that a typical period piece movie is better than that is an insult.

Starship Troopers a bad novel? ...it was prophetic in the evolution of warfare. And unless you've been in the military there's a host of things from the book you wouldn't notice. Additionally, Isreal is a modern country with a decently free media, compulsory military service and it manages to stand while surrounded by enemies. Fascism is bad but militarism does not equal fascism. You also completely misrepresent the character of Heinlein by not mentioning the quintessential 60s novel Stranger in a Strange Land which came out barely 2 years after Starship Troopers.

Okay, I have to ask. Do you like to read? Do you have a list that does 10 books that are better than the movie? I am curious what you would put on this list.

You are always a delight to watch and listen to. Thank you

Ready Player One. Not that the film is good, but the book is just that much worse.

So in short.......... Reading is beyond you.

Absolutely love Pride & Prejudice. It has one of my favourite movie moments of all time. In the church, when she looks to him, he looks up and BOOM cut. So quick, so intense, love it. And everybody I know dislikes Hitchhiker's Guide the movie, but I also think it's great! Personally my number 1 pick for this topic would be Gone Girl. Great book, amazing movie.

Starship troopers the novel doesn't require military service to get citizenship, it requires civil service, military service is just by far the easiest way portrayed in the novels.

With you up to the point of Starship Troopers, which I really must disagree with. The movie was plodding, plot-hole-y military schmaltz, stitched together in haphazard form but with the addition of pretty Hollywood-ized "teenagers" (gotta love inappropriate Dawson casting). Oh, and boobs. Because what would a Verhoeven movie be without gratuitous nudity? Also, no powered armor. And no explanation of how exactly these ground-clogging bugs managed to harness and fling an asteroid across interstellar distances to whack Earth. (Which, to be fair to Verhoeven, didn't exist in the novel either, but you could rationalize it as taking place offscreen and that the bugs had something resembling high-tech just offscreen. The movie, not so much.) Heinlein's got his flaws as a writer, I'll freely admit -- and you've highlighted at least a few in this vlog. But the novel was still vastly superior to Verhoeven's schlockfest. (Although at least the movie gave me a decent point of reference when I'm trying to tell people about Edge of Tomorrow -- "It's like Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers -- but actually good! And there's powered armor.")

Interview with a Vampire only has one problem: Tom Cruise.

Really glad I found your channel, even if I completely disagree with many of your choices here. 😆 For me, the most obvious movies better than the books they’re based on would have to be American Psycho and Rules of Attraction, both originally by Bret Easton Ellis. More of the good stuff with just a quarter of the pretension.

I can understand the part about the action and "trimming the fat" in The Count of Montecristo, since I struggled reading through quite a few parts myself. But I can't forgive the filmmakers essential changes in the resolution, which affect the story's outlook on life, love, justice and revenge. I remember feeling cheated after the movie ended, and thinking that if they wanted to do something so different they should have written another script.

When it comes to Pride and Prejudice my recommendation is that you listen to the audiobook. It brings the story to life for the modern reader and emphasizes the humor and relatability.

I'm sorry, but Verhoven completely fucked over Heinleins classic novel and the movie is a complete pile of Horsepucky that deserves the same fate as The Star Wars Holiday Special and Verhoven deserves 10 lashes in Public Square for it.

I saw Starship Troopers again just the other day. Awesome! It was fun to see this video essay in that context. You are, of course, wrong about P&P. Yes, the visuals are superb. I rewatch it every year, just for that scene at the Netherfield ball, but the novel...its cruelty never comes across in the film.

I've been enjoying your videos but we have very different tastes in books. On this list, you have my top two favorite books, as well as, two others that I love. I'll continue enjoying your videos but I'll never ask for book recommendations.

I liked "Starship Troopers" the movie but I also liked Heinlen's book. Let's not make the mistake that one has a whole lot to do with the other. "Starship Troopers" the movie is as much an adaptation of the book as "The Bourne Identity" is an adaptation of Ludlum's novel. The movies took the barest plot details and wrote completely different stories.

Starship Troopers the movie was not better than the book. The movie was much better than most people think it was, but the book was fucking fantastic. I did read the book in boot camp. I was wondering at the time why I had quit college to enlist. So...yeah if you really really really want to enjoy Starship Troopers, try doing that.

I love StarShip Troopers, the movie. That’s all. Just love and now that I know the subtext, I love it even more. Great list!

I'm a simple woman: I see Keira Knightly, I click

Serves me right for watching a video by an American about books :/

Pride And Prejudice? The Lizzie Bennet Diaries here on KZfaq is way better than the film.

I know this video was uploaded 3 years ago but I've been binge watching your videos on random and I CANT SEEM TO ALTER MY ATTRNTION TO YOUR EYES ITS SUPER NICE WITH THAT THING WHERE YOU SQUINTS AND IT FORMS A CREASE? Might sound a bit weird but still, that's some good eyes

Okay I actually agree with you about Pride and Prejudice! And that scene where he touches her hand and then the close-up shot of him flexing his hand as he walks away is brilliant. It's such a small scene but it conveys so much emotion just in that hand movement. And you need that because it's the Regency era so Darcy's not going to be talking about how much he likes Elizabeth or flirting with her. The director needed to SHOW US Darcy's feelings and that one close-up of his hand demonstrates what he feels for her perfectly.