barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (12/19/85)
> :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach > sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq > 2001, by the way, is truly a special case. Not only is it a film done at the > same time as the novel, but I also nominate it as the only SF film that was > BETTER than the book was. Anyone else want to add new nominations? Secret of NIMH is *much* better than the book. I've seldom been so disappointed in a book! There is *no* real conflict! As for good translations of books to movies: Watership Down is very good, as is The Last Unicorn (but then, Beagle wrote both book and screenplay). (And Zero Mostel as Keehar in the former -- should have gotten an Oscar!)(But then, I'm prejudiced.) As for the problems of book and movie, is a problem of medium. An author has a comparatively easy pace to tell his/her story. He/she can play 'games', allowing the reader *inside* the characters' heads, and he/she has no SPX budget to constrain him/her. (There is a Shelly Berman -- I believe -- spot on the advantages of radio over television that illustrates this quite well.) Given a movie, with a budget, with certain 'laws' of capability within that budget to pull off believable Special Effects, and with a two or so hour limitation, you have some very interesting problems. A novel into a true-to its-origin good movie seems almost a contradiction in terms. What do you leave out? (I'm sure most of us >ththhtbbbbt!< at condensed versions of "good" books.) And what do you do with a governing marketing/decision dept. who doubts that 'quality' will 'play in Peoria'? I don't mean to say that good movies from existing written formats (novels, short stories, etc.) are not impossible -- indeed, there are a few examples to the contrary; but they are difficult enough to produce to be flamed unlikely -- as we have >shudder< seen. Perhaps, someday, quality such as we crave will be the norm. But, having spent a couple recent sick days spinning the channels past the Game Shows, Soap Operas, and afternoon Cartoons, I have my fears. We are then left to support, as we can, those endeavers which *do* adhere to our needs for quality. Perhaps, someday, someone will listen. (Or I'll make enough $$$$ to do it myself!)(We're all entitled to a dream or two.) Barb Shoot for the stars -- you'll at least make the top of the mountain.
hankb@teklds.UUCP (Hank Buurman) (12/20/85)
In article <3081@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >2001, by the way, is truly a special case. Not only is it a film done at the >same time as the novel, but I also nominate it as the only SF film that was >BETTER than the book was. Anyone else want to add new nominations? "Blade Runner" better than P.K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." Hank Buurman ihnp4!tektronix!dadlac!hankb ================================================= "I'm not in the business....I am the business." -- Rachel, Nexus6 Replicant, Experimental =================================================
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (12/22/85)
>> 2001, by the way, is truly a special case. Not only is it >>a film done at the same time as the novel, but I also >>nominate it as the only SF film that was BETTER than the >>book was. Anyone else want to add new nominations? QUEST FOR LOVE is better than the John Wyndham story "Random Quest" on which it was based. I assume you don't count books based on films which are often not as good as the film, only rarely are they actually better (TARZAN AND THE VALLEY OF GOLD and FANTASTIC VOYAGE as examples that it does happen). Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
dianeh@ISM780.UUCP (12/24/85)
/* Written 4:53 am Dec 20, 1985 by boyajian@decwrl in ISM780:net.sf-lovers */ >>> From: Dave Godwin <godwin@ICSE.UCI.EDU> >>> In my humble opinion, never in sf has there been a case of good book >>> being made into good movie, just good book into celluloid drivel... >> Well, this seems like a good time to flame back. How about "A Boy and >> His Dog" (hugo, 1976) or "Dr. Strangelove" (hugo, 1965) or "Secret of >> NIMH" (1983?)... >Want more? How about... >CHARLY, >PLANET OF THE APES (yes, I thought the first Apes film was good) >Is this enough, or shall I go on? > >--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) > ><"Filmography is my pastime"> /* End of text from ISM780:net.sf-lovers */ CHARLY *better* than Flowers_for_Algernon??? Yuk! The film wasn't bad, if you *don't* compare it to the book -- but once you do... PLANET OF THE APES was an abomination compared to the book. It's a typical Hollywood product -- "Hey, this sounds great...apes running the world and having humans as slaves...yeah, and we can tie in a Third World War at the same time...Great!" The book was subtle and intriguing and had *nothing* to do with our blowing ourselves up. Read it sometime. Diane Holt Interactive Systems Corp. ima!ism780
dianeh@ISM780.UUCP (12/31/85)
/* Written 10:06 pm Dec 26, 1985 by boyajian@decwrl in ISM780:net.sf-lovers */ >Where in my posting did I claim that either of these films was >*better* than the book it's derived from?? The original comment >that I was responding to claimed that no good movie was ever >made from a good book. I listed examples that, in my opinion, >showed otherwise. PLANET OF THE APES was a good novel. PLANET >OF THE APES was a good movie. Whether either is better than the >other is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please read >what I have to say before flaming. > As for CHARLY, I beg to differ. The film was not as good >as the *short story* "Flowers for Algernon", but I still think >it's better than the novel version. > >--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA) /* End of text from ISM780:net.sf-lovers */ I read what you had to say; I understood the issue at hand. Comparison to the original was *not* irrelevant. If a film (or book) is *based* on a book (or film), then a comparison to the original form is inevitable -- otherwise, all you have is two separate entities sharing a common title, but little else. In that case, you can't say that a good book has been *made into* a good film; all you can say is, "That's a good film. There's also a good book with the same title." The issue at hand was good books that had (or, in the original poster's opinion, hadn't) been made into good films. PLANET OF THE APES was a schlock film because it deviated so drastically (and tragically) from the original, with absolutely no good excuse for doing so. It turned a perfectly good story into Hollywood-pulp. They did a convincing job on the makeup, and that's about it. As to CHARLY, it's just a matter of opinion, since they didn't deviate enough from the original to have that as a basis for criticism (but I still think that whole bit with the motorcycle gang was crap), but *I* happen to think that the book was better -- so there, nyah. Now I'll offer an example of a film that I think was better (although there are probably people who would say just as good and probably some that would say not as good) than the book: BEING THERE. Jerzy Kozinki's book bored me to tears, but the movie was really touching: simple, elegant, and beautifully done. You see, I'm not a "never has a film lived up to the book" fanatic. I simply disagreed with two of your examples. Diane Holt Interactive Systems Corp. ima!ism780!dianeh "Personal opinion -- love it or hate it, but you can't ignore it." --Me
narayana@psuvax1.UUCP (Kuram T. Narayana) (01/28/86)
> > > > I know this note and its responses are obsolete but > Blade Runner is clearly the greatest science fiction > film ever, it must be (and is) better than the novel, > though P.K. Dick's Do_Androids_Dream_Of_Electric_Sheep? > has to be nominated for best SF book title honors. > > Anyway.... > > Mike Krantz > > - - - - - > > "Tough luck, fat boy, it's not my goddam planet." *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***