so i was watching the feature film adaptation of 'a river runs through it' tonight, and aside from the book offering much more depth and coherence for the story that engages and fulfills the reader more so than the movie (though the movie is enjoyable nonetheless) and thought of another reason (other than what i just mentioned of course) why books top movies. in the movies there are a bunch of crap messages like "blah blah this is fictional, any relation is coincidental" -- yeah, no duh. it's not a documentary. with literature you know it's fiction, there's no need for that message. suck a duck, movie publishing companies! also, "no <insert animal here> were harmed in this movie." yeah, big deal. the author of the book doesn't need to tell me he didn't harm any animals to gain the perspective he portrays in his work of literature. ugh, i hate all those needless messages movie companies put into the movies. you don't see books saying "the following opinion is not that of <insert publishing company>" do you? no, because it's pretty plain obvious that it's the opinion of whoever's writing the damn book. hello.