Gettin my nails did

How technologically advanced am I, blogging while getting a pedicure (autocorrect on my phone wanted to change that to 'clogging,' which would actually be more exciting if I could clog and get a pedi simultaneously!)? Really, I thought my book was in my car, but I took my school bag out last night before heading to Brooke's. I really need to start working on the traveling with a book part of my life. Ideally I could link my phone and my kindle, because, let's be honest, I rarely am without my phone, but I am such a stickler for real books, I can't justify buying electronic copies of books I can simply borrow, from friends or the library.

Ohhhh the asian man just started rubbing that oil stuff into my legs and feet. Heaven, honestly. I can't really afford regular pedicures, and really, it is a splurge, but the place I go is only 20 bucks, and the time in the massaging chair is worth the 20 dollars alone. Lower back kneading? Foot massage? I can feel the stress just melting away.
Back to reality.

I am almost finished with Water for Elephants, and, no, I have no interest in seeing the film once finished. I'm a big read the book before seeing the movie person, and I'm pretty sure the only film I've seen where I never read the book was The Andromeda Strain (random, I know). I love the Harry Potter films, but on a separate level from the novels, which are infinitely better. I also even try and read books that tie into a television show (True Blood, for instance). And I say now I don't want to see the film, but I will probably watch it when it's free OnDemand or something like that. As much as I disliked the last few (aka all but the first) Twilight books, I did watch the film because it was on tv for free. I was painting my nails (interesting... is there a connection?) and knitting, so it was a random night, but I figured I'd give it a shot.
It was horrible.

Why do we even bother? Why do we need film adaptations, when many of them are disappointing? Well, besides the obvious 'so I can show them to my students when we finish the novels answer, what reasons do we have? Some films are wonderful, but like covers of songs, unless you are bringing something new and its fantastic, why bother?

According to sources -- okay, my 17 year old students -- there are talks of turning The Catcher in the Rye into a movie, I suppose since Salinger is dead (RIP you racist man... I love you) and can't complain. I think this is a terrible decision for a novel that has been relevant to teenagers for over 60 years. Kids already refuse to read, and Catcher is at least one that about half end up enjoying, but once they make a movie version, what motivation do they have to pick up the book?
Also, wouldn't it make a terrible movie? They would play up the prostitute scene, focus on the 'Fuck You' sections, and probably cut out anything where Holden gets off topic. Oh, wait. That's the entire novel.

They also said they had picked an actor to play Holden. Someone unknown? I asked, thinking that was the only reasonable route. No, no, Ms. Beck. Oh, no.

Justin Bieber.

Oh FUCK no. If this is true, I'm boycotting Hollywood forever (Holden would be proud). But honestly, the biebs? Who has probably avoided the angsty teenage years by becoming famous at 9, or whenever, and having an altogether lucky, blessed, easy life? How could someone bastardize a classic favorite in that way?

How do you feel about movie versions? The Time Traveler's Wife was hideous, that's for sure. Oh, and I suppose I saw The Notebook and never read the book but, really, who did read that book? Nicholas Sparks (and Justin Bieber) can suck it.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8