Wow these movies were shit. Are the books good though?

Nah, they're for women and kids.

>>8822980
>good

What is good? What does good mean? Is good palpable, measurable? Can I test for good? Can I compare one to another and find that one contains more good? Can it be good to me, but not good to you? Can it be both good and not good at once, to just me? If it were good, why would you need to ask? Would good be immediately discernible? Is good intrinsic? If good is obvious, why would you ask if something were good? If the movies were shit, can the books be good? But if the books were shit, must the movies be shit? If the books were shit and the movies were shit recreations of the book, does that mean the movie is good? If the movies being shit shocked you, could that be why you expect the books to be good? Are the books good enough to ask an internet forum? If they are not, why is this question asked? If the books are so bad as to necessitate discussion, wouldn't that make them inherently good? Does my replying in this manner imply that the books are worth this reply? Does my reply in and of itself cause the books to become more good? Why would I even reply if I did not think that the books were good enough to warrant a reply?

TL;DR The books are shit.

>>8822980
Movies are for fags and homosexuals.

The movies are the only "good" part about that universe.

>>8822980
"No!"

>>8822980

The books don't have that shitty, inane john williams soundtrack and terrible actors drowned by hideous computer effects.