> I have found that when I watch movies based on books, it ruins my ideas of how the characters should look, and act. I suppose animation would be the easiest way to pull off some of the things in the books, but animation is sometimes just too cheesy.

If a movie has enough money (and since this is theoretical, let's assume it has) it can be done convincingly whether it's animated or live-action. Filmmaking technology is at the point where any audio or video effect can be accomplished, and the limitation now is the extent of the directors' imaginations, not the mechanics of the medium. Not that this has much to do with the thread at hand, but I thought I'd pipe up regardless.

>I can't think of a director or any actors that really could do justice to the books either.

If you're sold on the way you envision the books, there aren't any. The problem with filming a book is that you get the director's interpretation, and there's no longer any room for your own. The great thing about books is that everyone who reads them has a unique interpretation. With movies, everybody gets the same interpretation and differing audience reactions is left entirely up to the viewer's taste and how much the viewer connected with what was being said. That's why a book is always -- with exceptions probably numerable on one hand -- better than the corresponding movie.

>Sam, what is your favorite book, or books?

That's a tough question. I can answer that for movies but not books. I haven't read enough to feel comfortable with an answer. I mean I've read a lot, but it takes a lot longer to read a book than it is to watch a movie, and books have been around a lot longer, so I've read a much smaller percentage of what's out there. I guess that's the same for everyone. And wow am I in a rambling mood today.

My favorite *fantasy* books would have to be "The Hobbit" and probably one of the Shannara books. "Elfstones" or "Elf Queen" probably.

I also hold H. G. Wells in a category of his own, and I am VERY happy "War of the Worlds" won my BAM election. I finished it last Friday, and it was fantastic. One scene in particular, one chronicling a frank account of the rushed evacuation of London, is one of the most ingeniously-crafted scenes of brutal horror I've ever read -- something strangely akin to something Hitchcock might have filmed.

I don't know. If I slide this question back over the course of my life, this is a lot easier to answer. Growing up, "James and the Giant Peach" and especially "The Trumpet of the Swan," at different times, were books I loved stronger than I probably even *could* love a book now. "The Boxcar Children" was another, and "The Hobbit" had that kind of an honor later on. Still later, when I was in 7th grade, I revered "Watership Down" pretty highly.

But in all my life, I've read too many different kinds of books to give you an all-time favorite. My grandfather collects old books, has a huge collection, and I've read several of his old and rare gems. "The Last American," by J. A. Mitchell is an unknown classic. "The Wings of the Morning" (circa 1895; author's on the tip of my tongue) is the most exciting and suspenseful adventure stories I've ever read. "He Done Her Wrong" (don't think I ever knew the author) is hilarious and innovative in that it is a fully-fledged story but told without words. If you've even heard of any of these, I'm impressed.

This rambling post makes me think of a good thread. Shift back to around 3rd to 6th grade. What was your favorite book *then*? I suspect most readers will be as passionate about their answers as I am about mine.