Search found 2 matches: P.D. James

lilalex666 wrote:My biggest pet peeve with movie adaptations is when a fantastic story is taken, and turned Hollywood for easier audience consumption. Biggest example of this in my opinion is I am Legend.
such. A. Terrible. Movie. So...bad... *spoiler alert*
the novella was probably the coolest horror story Ive ever read. Such a believable character for the situation that is painted for the reader. Such an amazing ending that really makes you go "wow" in one of those jaw dropping, why didn't I think of that? Sort of ways.
and the movie? Sucks. Its not even close to being good, or even watchable as a stand alone. If you have never read the book, the movie still sucks. The bad guys arent scary. They arent anything really. Ive spoken to several people that watched the movie that decision ribbed the bad guys as zombies. Zombies. And then to have Will Smith become "a legend" for saving the world? Garbage. I was so excited to see this adaptation, and so angry, that at the end, when the credits read "based on the novel by Richard Matheson" I started screaming in the theatre "Lies! This is not true! Liars!" Until my friend dragged me out of the theatre, apologizing to the other patrons.

There is always "The Last Man on Earth" (1964) with Vincent Price or "The Omega Man" (1971) with Charlton Heston. I haven't seen the Vincent Price version yet although I have heard that film is the closest to the book. Charlton Heston's version gets the message right but goes off the book quite a bit and many people consider that film B-movie horror. "I am Legend" (2007) only really borrows the disease turning people into vampires and the supposed last man on Earth trying to find a cure. They completely ignored the message from the book which was [spoiler]that Robert Neville had become the monster and the legend as humanity's time on Earth was up and the vampires were now the new norm.[/spoiler]

The one movie that goes by the book completely (for the most part) that I have ever seen is "Gettysburg" (1993). Pretty much the book, "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara, and movie go hand in hand. It also explains why that movie has a 4 hour running time (5 hours for the Director's Cut; they did have to cut some fluff from the book).

One movie that ruined the book for me was "Children of Men" (2006) which I loved and went out and picked up the book, "The Children of Men" by P.D. James, after seeing the movie. While they both have the same message, they were completely different stories and atmospheres. The movie was a tense, dark thriller while the book was more of a mystery novel taking place in dystopian world.

For me, there are two outstanding examples;

The James Bond series- I have read every single completed Ian Fleming book and have a soft spot for them.

But there's no denying they're simplistic, fast-paced, light paperbacks that have about as much to do with actual spying as Fleming's other big hit, children's classic Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. They're silly fun. There is nothing special in them in terms of the writing, scenarios, action scenes, or ideas.

But the movies? Some of the greatest action/adventure works ever. In fact, the more the movies deviated from the source material, the better they were.. They focused way more on the humor and excitement, had a great visual presentation, better pacing, and more exciting ideas, regardless of whether they starred Connery or Moore.

I challenge anyone to read Fleming's Diamonds are Forever or Moonraker and tell me they're anywhere near as exciting or memorable as the film versions.

Brewster's Millions- Perhaps the most jarring example. There have been multiple adaptations of the original story by George Barr McCutcheon, but I am primarily talking about the 1985 version directed by Walter Hill starring Richard Pryor. The movie is a true comedy classic.

I figured perhaps much of that was adapted from the book, which I decided to read last year. Huge mistake. It's dull and predictable, without an iota of humor, but plenty of plot holes and assorted nonsense. Here is a more detailed review.

It's amazing they made such a great movie from such a lousy book.

Movies that were NOT better than books-

Gone with the Wind- Excellent movie adaptation, but doesn't even touch the book, one of the masterpieces of the 20th century. Scarlett is way more interesting, fully-realized, and impressive of a character in the original, the events and secondary characters are more deep and detailed, and the story is far more engaging. There is a level of insight and intelligence that the movie is sorely lacking, too.

The Godfather- Controversial pick, and possibly due to me reading the book first. (I had a friend who also read the book first and preferred it to Coppola's classic) The adaptation is outstanding, and very close to the novel...but the book is a pulp classic, rife with murder, excitement, and sex on top of everything the movies presented. It was just more upbeat and exciting, ultimately.

Focus- What are movies better than their book originals? Only reply if you seen and read both, and provide reasons. Mindless list topics suck.