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

[Mallus]

While this is true, I just simply don't see it in most of the movie.

That's fair.

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...).

I think the film's equally a satire of big, dumb, Hollywood scifi films, despite being precisely that. It's mocking itself --most of the time with a completely straight face.

However, I do think it's a little unfair to criticize the lack of (any sort) of military realism in the film. Most military scifi fails in that regard.

 

[Rackhir]

However, I do think it's a little unfair to criticize the lack of (any sort) of military realism in the film. Most military scifi fails in that regard.

Hollywood generally fails any sort of military realism period and almost never bothers to do even basic homework when it comes to either the hardware or tactics.

The recent Death Race remake describes the vulcan's on the lead's car as 20mm, when they are probably no bigger than 7.62, especially given the fact that the A-10's 30mm cannon is about the size of his entire car. Top Gun described the obvious Russian stand-ins as having "Exocets", which is a French missile. A clear and present danger had a US battle group somehow being taken completely by surprise by the russian attack, despite the Aegis Cruisers and Hawkeye AWACs. Etc... It just goes on and on.

Basically what the filmmaker considers dramatic or "cool" always trumps any sort of realism.

 

[Storm Raven]

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...).

Here's the thing about the ST movie - it is so ham-handed that any attempt at satire is simply lost. Kelly's Heroes works as satire. MASH works as satire. The ST movie just doesn't. Why? Because in the movies that work as satire they simply heightened the oddness of military organizations until it was clear how warped they become. The characters act in ways that are, individually, somewhat sensible twhen seen through the lens of the organization they are parts of. The "satire" in ST mostly consisted of making the military organization look stupid by having them act stupid. On their own terms, all of the military characters were simply idiots. As a result, the alleged satire simply falls flat.

And it really hurts the "satire" when one realizes that had the MI had, say, WWII era tanks, the bugs would have stood no chance at all.

One last thing - Mallus is on my IL, so I only see his gems of wisdom when others quote him.

 

[Mallus]

The ST movie just doesn't. Why? Because in the movies that work as satire they simply heightened the oddness of military organizations until it was clear how warped they become.

Again, Starship Troopers is a satire of war movies, particularly those intended as propaganda, not war departments/military organizations.

 

[Rackhir]

Here's the thing about the ST movie - it is so ham-handed that any attempt at satire is simply lost. Kelly's Heroes works as satire. MASH works as satire. The ST movie just doesn't. Why? Because in the movies that work as satire they simply heightened the oddness of military organizations until it was clear how warped they become. The characters act in ways that are, individually, somewhat sensible twhen seen through the lens of the organization they are parts of. The "satire" in ST mostly consisted of making the military organization look stupid by having them act stupid. On their own terms, all of the military characters were simply idiots. As a result, the alleged satire simply falls flat.

And it really hurts the "satire" when one realizes that had the MI had, say, WWII era tanks, the bugs would have stood no chance at all.

One last thing - Mallus is on my IL, so I only see his gems of wisdom when others quote him.

I am unconvinced that most of the movie is intended as satire, nor that the incompetence of the military is part of the satire. The "Do you want to Know more?" bits, yes definitely. Probably most of the scenes with Neil Patrick Harris. But that's about it for the satire.

BTW SR, the mods frown upon mentioning people being on ignore lists or that you are going to put them on one. That kind of thing can get you a warning or the thread locked.

 

[el-remmen]

"To Kill A Mockingbird" is the best book to film adaptation I have ever seen.

 

[TwinBahamut]

From what I have seen of it, The Wizard of Oz is pretty blatantly an inaccurate depiction of the novel in pretty much every single way. Countless widely known and popularized elements of that movie are severe deviations from the novel, even down to little details like the fact that in the novel, Dorothy's special shoes are silver, not red.

I think that is a good measuring stick to use to determine whether you think deviation from the novel is inherently bad for a movie. I tend to prefer the original version of a story, but I don't think something is inherently bad because it differs from its original source material. In the case of the Wizard of Oz, though, I will say that I liked the book better, since the lion and the wizard himself are so much more interesting in that one.

 

[Silver Moon]

From what I have seen of it, The Wizard of Oz is pretty blatantly an inaccurate depiction of the novel in pretty much every single way......I will say that I liked the book better, since the lion and the wizard himself are so much more interesting in that one.

Much of L. Frank Baum's Oz novels (we have all of them)are rather dark. My family watched the movie just two nights ago, and it still holds up very well.

1985's "Return to Oz" is much more true to the tone of the novels, but it is really not a fun or pleasant movie to watch. I'll keep the 1939 classic.

 

[apoptosis]

From what I have seen of it, The Wizard of Oz is pretty blatantly an inaccurate depiction of the novel in pretty much every single way. Countless widely known and popularized elements of that movie are severe deviations from the novel, even down to little details like the fact that in the novel, Dorothy's special shoes are silver, not red.

They wanted to make them silver but because of technicolor issues they couldnt.

 

[Whitemouse]

Much of L. Frank Baum's Oz novels (we have all of them)are rather dark. My family watched the movie just two nights ago, and it still holds up very well.

1985's "Return to Oz" is much more true to the tone of the novels, but it is really not a fun or pleasant movie to watch. I'll keep the 1939 classic.

Not sure if people know but there are two Oz movies coming out in 2010 (or close to); Oz (2010) and Dark Oz (2010).