Movies: Novel Adaptations That Failed To Keep True To The Novel

[Whitemouse]

On the subject of Tom Clancy novels, I'll add that Hunt for Red October is probably the single best film adapatation of a novel that I have ever seen. True in every way to the original.

I have to agree. In my opinion this is the best novel to silver screen adaptation I have ever seen.

 

[Rackhir]

Do you think the makers of the film were even remotely interested in portraying a believable, well-run future military? The film was, after all a satire of war-movies-as-propaganda.

I realize it's no reason to like Starship Troopers any better, but criticizing on the grounds of accuracy is like complaining that the Airplane movies don't offer a realistic view of the airline industry and air-traffic control...

No. While STtM had satirical elements most of the movie was really played pretty straight. Verhoeven is many things as a director, but subtle is not one of them and there's nothing satirical about most of the film.

Airplane was an outright parody, but actually even in that film most of the plot and dialog was taken straight from an earlier film drama called "Zero Hour" (they actually bought the rights to the film so they could steal so much from it).

To me at least the obnoxious thing about the stupidity of the Military forces in STtM was how lazy it was on the part of the film makers. They just didn't bother to put any thought into it.

And what can you say about the movie adaptation of a book that pretty much created the concept of Powered Armor, where no powered armor shows up? I mean if you're going to CGI all the bugs, how much more difficult could it have been to CGI the armor?

 

[Storm Raven]

No. While STtM had satirical elements most of the movie was really played pretty straight. Verhoeven is many things as a director, but subtle is not one of them and there's nothing satirical about most of the film.

The problem with the argument that the ST movie was a satire concerning the nature of war propaganda films is that the "satire" is so poorly done, because the military organization depicted is so ludicrously inept. It is tantamount to saying that the Keystone Cops are a satire of police work. They aren't, they are just slapstick. The ST movie wishes it could be as insightful as a slapstick routine.

To be a satire, there has to be believeability built into the basics of the story. Otherwise, there isn't satire, just stupidity. By making the mobile infantry incompetently stupid in training, organization, tactics, and leadership, the movie simply made itself stupid. Like I said, a group of retarded monkeys with lobotomies could have come up with a better movie - and they might have successfully made it a satire.

 

[Rackhir]

The problem with the argument that the ST movie was a satire concerning the nature of war propaganda films is that the "satire" is so poorly done, because the military organization depicted is so ludicrously inept. It is tantamount to saying that the Keystone Cops are a satire of police work. They aren't, they are just slapstick. The ST movie wishes it could be as insightful as a slapstick routine.

To be a satire, there has to be believeability built into the basics of the story. Otherwise, there isn't satire, just stupidity. By making the mobile infantry incompetently stupid in training, organization, tactics, and leadership, the movie simply made itself stupid. Like I said, a group of retarded monkeys with lobotomies could have come up with a better movie - and they might have successfully made it a satire.

I don't think Mallus's argument is that the movie is a satire because of the incompetence of the military in the film. Nor does a satire have to be believable. The point of a satire is to make fun of the stupidities and excess of something, typically by taking the characteristic elements of what ever it is to some extreme.

Like I said I chalk up the stupidities of the military to simple lazyness on the film makers part. I mean how often have you seen some piece of military hardware mislabeled, incorrectly described or just gotten completely wrong in some way that would have taken 30 seconds and a reference book to get it right?

 

[Mallus]

While STtM had satirical elements most of the movie was really played pretty straight.

I'd argue that was part of the joke. You can play a satire or parody very straight, in a highly ironic mode.

Verhoeven is many things as a director, but subtle is not one of them and there's nothing satirical about most of the film.

I agree with the first part of that sentence and completely disagree with the second.

To me at least the obnoxious thing about the stupidity of the Military forces in STtM was how lazy it was on the part of the film makers. They just didn't bother to put any thought into it.

They didn't care. They were out to make the use of war movies look inane, not say anything meaningful about the conduct of war itself. Of course, that's no reason not to find the film obnoxious.

And what can you say about the movie adaptation of a book that pretty much created the concept of Powered Armor, where no powered armor shows up?

I feel for you on this one. I was really disappointed by the lack of powered armor. I think I read something at the time about how they just couldn't get the CGI right... but who knows if that was true.

 

[Mallus]

It is tantamount to saying that the Keystone Cops are a satire of police work.

No it isn't. To use your example, just because I believe it's possible to construct a satire of police work as silly as the Keystone Cops doesn't mean I think of the Keystone Cops themselves are a satire of police work.

To be a satire, there has to be believeability built into the basics of the story.

Such as the call to eat Irish babies?

 

[amethal]

The movies I am Legend and I, Robot were pretty much about the opposite of what the books were about.

I wonder if its Will Smith's fault

I quite like the book LA Confidential but I love the movie; I'm glad the filmmakers departed from the book in a big way.

I also like the Starship Troopers movie as I find it entertaining, but I'd have liked a proper movie of the book much more - even if they still decided to depart from the black and white nature of much of the book.

 

[Rackhir]

I'd argue that was part of the joke. You can play a satire or parody very straight, in a highly ironic mode.

While this is true, I just simply don't see it in most of the movie. All complaints aside, large chunks of the movie are taken pretty straight from the book. If there's some satire or parody in those parts it has completely escaped me.

I don't see the satirical aspects of things like the attacking ships being so close they are colliding in space. Or the troopers having essentially no heavy weapons or any kind of support (arty, air, orbital artillery, etc...).

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

I liked the movie "From Hell," though I never read the book. I also liked "V" but I thought "LXG" was dreadful cubed.

"Silence of the Lambs" was better than the book, owing to Hopkins performance.

When watching the cable remake of "'Salem's Lot" a couple of years ago I kept wondering... what were they thinking?

 

[dragonier]

Disney's The Black Cauldron

I loved the Prydain books by Lloyd Alexander as a kid. Still do in fact. I was still a kid when the Disney movie came out and I was really excited.

Then I saw it. Wow, was it an awful movie. And a horrible adaptation of the book to top it off.

For years Disney would hardly acknowledge that they even made it. A good friend of mine studied classical animation at one of the premier animation schools in the world. They studied The Black Cauldron as an example of what not to do. The school used its connections with the studios to get a copy of the movie for instructional use long before it was released to video.

The sad thing is that apparently it could have been much better. My friend tells me that the editing was awful. A lot of the best material ended up cut.

It was my first experience with exactly how badly a book could be brought to film. Still makes me sad to think about it.