The news of author Michael Crichton's death was a bit of a shock to me this morning.
I do love thriller/action fiction but the passing of this author brings a different issue to the forefront - that of movie adaptions of novels.
I was a big fan of Jurassic Park, the movie. It was great - Steven Spielberg did a top job, considering it was created in 1992 or something like that.
And so when Crichton came out with the sequel to Jurassic Park - The Lost World - I got very excited. The book was great - I loved every second of it and eagerly awaited the release of the movie.
But I was to be sorely disappointed with the movie adaption.
To this day, it stands as one of the worst book-to-screen adaptions I have ever encountered.
In the book, the scientists basically went to this island, had run-ins with a myriad of dinosaurs and then escaped with (most of) their lives.
But not in the movie. No, in the movie they just tacked a Hollywood ending onto the plot. In the movie, the scientists capture a Tyrannosaurus Rex on the island, bring it back to New York and - you guessed it - it escapes, wreaking Godzilla-style havoc throughout the city.
Shite.
Which leads me to my next question: what, dear readers, are your favourite (bad) book to movie adaptions?
3 months ago
11 comments:
Neverending Story when I was a kid. I can think of others but it was that first betrayal that really got me. English Patient could have been better, Queen of the Dammed shouldn't have been attempted (Anne Rice better have got a lot of cash for that shit).
And you're right the Jurassic Park debacle was shameful. First one was great, after that they just figured they could reproduce the same formula again and again. Sequels mostly just devalue the original.
Except in the case of Terminator 2. And Aliens.
I may lose whatever respect you have of me by saying this but Spiderman 2. I'm not one for fiction and the nearest I ever came to it was graphic novels.
Now, before you lol in my silly little face there are a few things you need to know about Spiderman that may help understand why I loved the second in the ongoing series; Spiderman was the first comic to kill a female lead character. If you've seen the first Spiderman you may remember the moment when his girlfriend is thrown off the bridge and Spiderman saves her. That doesn't happen in the comic. She falls to her death. Another thing is that it is an extremly violent comic that doesn't exploit its adult nature; remember Venom from the third installment? Well, there is another type of villian that looks exactly like him (excpet he is red) and was a spree killer before he came in contact with the alien costume. Suffice to say he became a complete unstoppable terror in the comic book and killed dozens upon dozens of innocent people, all of which sat on Spidermans shoulders.
I liked the second Spiderman only because it does well to balance and carry the story evenly, from the villian Dr. Octopus (who was played perfectly) to the weight of identity. Spiderman is a character everyone can relate with at some point because he has his times of foolishness, innocence, deviance and resolve.
When I do read a book it is mostly true crime, travel journals or science, political and economic reference books. You see alot of those influences in the story I'm writing because it is all I know. And if you're a comic book fan you will certainly see the influence it has too.
Jurassic Park is still amazing by todays standards. No doubt.
Do you know what will ruin a film more than the fact it is a completely cheapened version of the novel? Having to study it at uni. Ruined Aliens for me. Ruined 12 Monkeys. Almost ruined Pulp Fiction.
I had to study Muriel's Wedding.
Shit will make you rage after the second viewing!
I respect your view on Spiderman 2 Orhan - I was never into the Spiderman comics so perhaps that's something I should look at. I did enjoy the Spiderman movies though - even, dare I say it, Spiderman 3...
Spiderman 3 was okay, the problem however is.. well, I could go into detail or you could watch this
and lol @ the obvious flaws in what could've been an epic film.
Harry Potter - brilliant books ruined by appalling acting and pathetic "feel-good lets-all-applaud-for-no-reason" endings that made me want to smash the tv and vomit simultaneously...not to mention the missing plot points which completely erase the point of the whole story.
You had to study Muriel's Wedding? That is cruel and unusual.
Vomit and smash the TV simultaneously? Powerful reaction. I'd say it'd be something to see, but I'd prefer not to.
That is a powerful reaction. I must admit I've never had both of those urges at the same time...
Post a Comment