THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN by Michael Crichton. In this novel written in 1969, a military space probe crashes to earth carrying an extraterrestrial microorganism. This organism ends up wiping out the inhabitants of a small Arizona town except for an old man and a two month old baby. A group of four scientists, enlisted by the government, are called up and brought to a secret government institution to study the organism (labeled the Andromeda Strain) in order to try to prevent it from causing further deaths. Miscommunication and human error, however, interfere with the operation from running as smoothly as hoped. Crichton's book is a very quick read and successfully builds an atmosphere of tension and mystery surrounding the organism and its destructive potential. The book is heavily scientific, and there are times in which the book does get a little "dry" in all its terminology (and in Crichton's efforts to explain scientific terms through character dialogue, like one would see in a classic 50's B-science fiction film). The book reads like a movie and one can imagine this as a film while one reads it. Issues of science vs. government, government conspiracies, and the possibilities of biological warfare are pretty creepy (I imagine very much so back in the late 60s and 70s) but still resonate today. At one time in my life I seriously considered becoming a microbiologist, so I really enjoyed this book.
Robert Wise directed the adaptation of the book, made in 1971. It is generally faithful to the book, though there are some major changes. Perhaps the biggest change came in making one of the male scientists female. The character of Leavitt in the book is changed to a female scientist played by Kate Reid. She is given the majority of humorous lines in the film, though in the midst of the "seriousness" in which the film plays out her snaps and verbal jabs come off as somewhat awkward to me (another character in the book, Charles Burton, was changed to Charles Dutton in the film for some reason). Arthur Hill plays Dr. Jeremy Stone, the main scientist in the film and head of the Wildfire group. He plays his part with gusto though has the tendency to overact a bit. The tone of the film (like the book) is serious, and THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN has that unsettling 70s science fiction feel to it. I noticed more of a emphasis in the film on the government conspiracy to send probes into outer space in order find extraterrestrial microorganisms to incorporate into biological warfare weapons than in the book (though it is there in the book). The special effects are decent for what they were, especially in the computer imagery used. Wise also used some great camera techniques (as he did in ST:TMP) to accentuate depth of field, and he also did some interesting things in a couple of montage sequences to emphasize the mystery and horror of the unexplained deaths of the townspeople in Arizona (it played like a picture album of the town and its inhabitants - you'll know it when you see it). The score by Gil Melle is very avant garde and is more of an additional sound effect in the film than actual music. Although I prefer the book much more to the film, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN is a watchable movie and an interesting product of its time.
Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Last edited by mkaroly on Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
I'd been toying with the idea of starting a thread like this because I've been getting a chance to read or re-experience some novels from the 70s that became movies and noted the difference.
Hijacked by David Harper (Edwin Corley), published in 1970 which then became the 1972 movie Skyjacked starring Charlton Heston, James Brolin and Yvette Mimieux.
-This novel gives us the story of an airplane hijacking of a 707 bound from New York to San Francisco. Chapters are written in hour-long blocks and we see the action go back and forth between what's happening on the plane and various points on the ground. Early on, we are given some suspense as to which of the passengers might be the hijacker. The narrative is written in a way to conceal who it might be. Could it be the soldier who is in a hurry to ship out to Okinawa? The African-American jazz cellist? The young hippie woman? The pregnant passenger? The Congressman? A third of the way in, the revelation comes. It's the soldier, who threatens to explode a bomb unless the plane goes to Seattle. We get some tension because the weather is making landing difficult in Seattle and we have a harrowing moment of a near mid-air collision with a private plane before it gets safely on the ground. After most of the passengers get let off, suddenly the unstable soldier now deciding that he's in too much trouble as it is, wants to go to Moscow. So the remainder of the novel is the attempt to make it there and the novel ultimately comes to a tragic end for the hijacker.
Skyjacked the movie version is a very faithful adaptation for the most part. The only character name changes are that the captain becomes Hank O'Hara instead of Michael O'Hara and the Congressman becomes a Senator (Walter Pidgeon) who is traveling with his son which lets his son bond with the young hippie woman passenger (Susan Dey). But the film also significantly improves the basic narrative by tightening things up and jettisoning a LOT of stuff that came off as very forced and ridiculous. First, the soldier's immediate goal is to get to Moscow. It brings his motive straight to the point. He thus in two phases first wants them to get to Anchorage for refueling and then to Moscow. Second, there was a stupid conceit of Captain O'Hara's daughter, living in SF trying to get up to Seattle to her father and she is in the private plane that the 707 nearly collides with before landing and if that isn't absurd enough, she manages to slip on board the hijacked jet while everyone else is getting off to tag along for the ride to Moscow! Equally absurd is how the lead stewardess, Angela, has a boyfriend in New York who *also* tags along chasing after her to the west coast to catch up with the hijacking. The film wisely eliminates Captain O'Hara's daughter and they also establish Stewardess Angela as a former lover of Captain O'Hara, who has by this point gone back to his wife (leaving her to settle for the co-pilot). And finally, the novel makes the mistake of trying to overly humanize the hijacker and make him seem too tragic a figure. Heston, in his journal noted that he felt that the hijacker could not come off as sympathetic and ultimately this is the route they went. James Brolin played the part with a lot more cruelty and psychopathic qualities and the end result is far more compelling than the hijacker of the novel. "Skyjacked" may have been a relatively formulaic type of airplane peril movie story, but when comparing it to it's source novel, it shows how a film script *really* needs to tighten a novel's narrative and how it can improve on that.
Hijacked by David Harper (Edwin Corley), published in 1970 which then became the 1972 movie Skyjacked starring Charlton Heston, James Brolin and Yvette Mimieux.
-This novel gives us the story of an airplane hijacking of a 707 bound from New York to San Francisco. Chapters are written in hour-long blocks and we see the action go back and forth between what's happening on the plane and various points on the ground. Early on, we are given some suspense as to which of the passengers might be the hijacker. The narrative is written in a way to conceal who it might be. Could it be the soldier who is in a hurry to ship out to Okinawa? The African-American jazz cellist? The young hippie woman? The pregnant passenger? The Congressman? A third of the way in, the revelation comes. It's the soldier, who threatens to explode a bomb unless the plane goes to Seattle. We get some tension because the weather is making landing difficult in Seattle and we have a harrowing moment of a near mid-air collision with a private plane before it gets safely on the ground. After most of the passengers get let off, suddenly the unstable soldier now deciding that he's in too much trouble as it is, wants to go to Moscow. So the remainder of the novel is the attempt to make it there and the novel ultimately comes to a tragic end for the hijacker.
Skyjacked the movie version is a very faithful adaptation for the most part. The only character name changes are that the captain becomes Hank O'Hara instead of Michael O'Hara and the Congressman becomes a Senator (Walter Pidgeon) who is traveling with his son which lets his son bond with the young hippie woman passenger (Susan Dey). But the film also significantly improves the basic narrative by tightening things up and jettisoning a LOT of stuff that came off as very forced and ridiculous. First, the soldier's immediate goal is to get to Moscow. It brings his motive straight to the point. He thus in two phases first wants them to get to Anchorage for refueling and then to Moscow. Second, there was a stupid conceit of Captain O'Hara's daughter, living in SF trying to get up to Seattle to her father and she is in the private plane that the 707 nearly collides with before landing and if that isn't absurd enough, she manages to slip on board the hijacked jet while everyone else is getting off to tag along for the ride to Moscow! Equally absurd is how the lead stewardess, Angela, has a boyfriend in New York who *also* tags along chasing after her to the west coast to catch up with the hijacking. The film wisely eliminates Captain O'Hara's daughter and they also establish Stewardess Angela as a former lover of Captain O'Hara, who has by this point gone back to his wife (leaving her to settle for the co-pilot). And finally, the novel makes the mistake of trying to overly humanize the hijacker and make him seem too tragic a figure. Heston, in his journal noted that he felt that the hijacker could not come off as sympathetic and ultimately this is the route they went. James Brolin played the part with a lot more cruelty and psychopathic qualities and the end result is far more compelling than the hijacker of the novel. "Skyjacked" may have been a relatively formulaic type of airplane peril movie story, but when comparing it to it's source novel, it shows how a film script *really* needs to tighten a novel's narrative and how it can improve on that.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
The Lord of the Rings
In writing The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien was partly motivated to invent a "mythology" for Britain, since that land had no creation myth of its own (unlike the Greco-Roman, German and Norse cultures). He was influenced by German myths (particularly The Ring of the Nibelungen), as well as Nordic sagas, fairy tales and Celtic lore, while the Hobbits were an amalgam of the country folk of rural England (where he grew-up) and stories he'd heard of hillbillies in the American southeast. And while he regarded the King Arthur legends as more of a French legend than genuinely English lore, you can see their influence as well (particularly that of Merlin on the character of Gandalf).
Tolkien's work of course inspired the whole "sword and sorcery" genre -- endless imitations by other authors, filmmakers (particularly in the 1980s) and of course "role-playing" games like Dungeons & Dragons.
The eventual film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings seemed unable to escape the influence of those copious "Tolkien imitations" -- so-much-so that the films actually seemed more an homage to the "sword and sorcery" culture which Tolkien inspired, than the actual book itself. While Tolkien intended no allegory in creating his work, his essentially Christian world view informs the entire book -- yet Peter Jackson (rather bafflingly) described LOTR as "a celebration of all things pagan".
New Line Pictures proposed adapting Tolkien's story into two films, but Jackson insisted on being "true" to the source material and making three films. However, contrary to popular misconception, the book was never a "trilogy". It was a single volume -- which the publisher divided into three volumes because they thought that would help sales (they were also concerned readers would be scared-off by the immensity of one massive book). The author reluctantly acquiesced to this marketing strategy. The final volume published, "The Return of the King" was much shorted than either of the previous books -- yet the film is nevertheless stretched out to three hours (like the previous pictures).
Alteration is always necessary in bringing a book to the screen, but the films make a number of ill-concieved deviations from the original story, which upset the character motivations and open plot holes in the narrative...
In the book, Gandalf already knows Frodo is in possession of the "one ring" -- which is why he throws it into the fire, and can assure Frodo it is "quite cool" and safe to touch (because only the fires of Mt. Doom can affect its temperature). In the movie, Gandalf is obviously un-sure it is the one ring -- until after it is withdrawn from the fire and the Elven script appears on it. So how can Gandalf assure Frodo the ring won't burn his fingers?
In the book, it is Glorfindel (a male elf) who rescues Frodo from the ringwraiths, not Arwen (who is a less-than-minor character in the original story).
In the book, Galadriel does not transform into a blue CGI monster when Frodo offers her the ring (nor does Bilbo turn into Grandpa Munster when he sees the ring at Rivendel).
In the book, everyone -- including Gimli -- already knows that Moria is a long-destroyed city. In the movie, only Gandalf knows. So why doesn't he inform the rest of the fellowship that everyone in Moria has been dead for years -- particularly Gimli, who goes on about the warm welcome and hospitality they can expect from his kin?
In the book, the human defenders of Helm's Deep are not aided by the arrival of an army of elves, as is shown in the movie. Nor do Aragorn and Gimli manage to attack the orcs by using a convenient "side door".
In the book, Faramir is immune to the temptation of the ring -- but Jackson changes this so that Faramir too longs to possess it. Jackson justifies this change by actually claiming "Tolkien was wrong".
In the book, Bilbo is not old and senile when he departs for the Grey Havens; he has aged somewhat since the start of the story but the "youthening" influence of the ring is still somewhat extant. Conversely, Frodo is not 20-years-old like Elijah Wood. In fact, when he and Sam set-off on their quest, he is 50 years of age.
Peter Jackson also consistently played-up the action / horror elements (and CGI effects) -- often at the expense of the story's more introspective elements. The films didn't really capture the tone of the books, as Jackson was clearly trying to conform Tolkien's story into something more akin to a Star Wars movie.
In writing The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien was partly motivated to invent a "mythology" for Britain, since that land had no creation myth of its own (unlike the Greco-Roman, German and Norse cultures). He was influenced by German myths (particularly The Ring of the Nibelungen), as well as Nordic sagas, fairy tales and Celtic lore, while the Hobbits were an amalgam of the country folk of rural England (where he grew-up) and stories he'd heard of hillbillies in the American southeast. And while he regarded the King Arthur legends as more of a French legend than genuinely English lore, you can see their influence as well (particularly that of Merlin on the character of Gandalf).
Tolkien's work of course inspired the whole "sword and sorcery" genre -- endless imitations by other authors, filmmakers (particularly in the 1980s) and of course "role-playing" games like Dungeons & Dragons.
The eventual film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings seemed unable to escape the influence of those copious "Tolkien imitations" -- so-much-so that the films actually seemed more an homage to the "sword and sorcery" culture which Tolkien inspired, than the actual book itself. While Tolkien intended no allegory in creating his work, his essentially Christian world view informs the entire book -- yet Peter Jackson (rather bafflingly) described LOTR as "a celebration of all things pagan".
New Line Pictures proposed adapting Tolkien's story into two films, but Jackson insisted on being "true" to the source material and making three films. However, contrary to popular misconception, the book was never a "trilogy". It was a single volume -- which the publisher divided into three volumes because they thought that would help sales (they were also concerned readers would be scared-off by the immensity of one massive book). The author reluctantly acquiesced to this marketing strategy. The final volume published, "The Return of the King" was much shorted than either of the previous books -- yet the film is nevertheless stretched out to three hours (like the previous pictures).
Alteration is always necessary in bringing a book to the screen, but the films make a number of ill-concieved deviations from the original story, which upset the character motivations and open plot holes in the narrative...
In the book, Gandalf already knows Frodo is in possession of the "one ring" -- which is why he throws it into the fire, and can assure Frodo it is "quite cool" and safe to touch (because only the fires of Mt. Doom can affect its temperature). In the movie, Gandalf is obviously un-sure it is the one ring -- until after it is withdrawn from the fire and the Elven script appears on it. So how can Gandalf assure Frodo the ring won't burn his fingers?
In the book, it is Glorfindel (a male elf) who rescues Frodo from the ringwraiths, not Arwen (who is a less-than-minor character in the original story).
In the book, Galadriel does not transform into a blue CGI monster when Frodo offers her the ring (nor does Bilbo turn into Grandpa Munster when he sees the ring at Rivendel).
In the book, everyone -- including Gimli -- already knows that Moria is a long-destroyed city. In the movie, only Gandalf knows. So why doesn't he inform the rest of the fellowship that everyone in Moria has been dead for years -- particularly Gimli, who goes on about the warm welcome and hospitality they can expect from his kin?
In the book, the human defenders of Helm's Deep are not aided by the arrival of an army of elves, as is shown in the movie. Nor do Aragorn and Gimli manage to attack the orcs by using a convenient "side door".
In the book, Faramir is immune to the temptation of the ring -- but Jackson changes this so that Faramir too longs to possess it. Jackson justifies this change by actually claiming "Tolkien was wrong".
In the book, Bilbo is not old and senile when he departs for the Grey Havens; he has aged somewhat since the start of the story but the "youthening" influence of the ring is still somewhat extant. Conversely, Frodo is not 20-years-old like Elijah Wood. In fact, when he and Sam set-off on their quest, he is 50 years of age.
Peter Jackson also consistently played-up the action / horror elements (and CGI effects) -- often at the expense of the story's more introspective elements. The films didn't really capture the tone of the books, as Jackson was clearly trying to conform Tolkien's story into something more akin to a Star Wars movie.
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Aside from ROTK being way too long (get to Mount Doom already!), I hated the sequence where Arwen rescues Frodo and then tells the ringwraits "If you want him, come and claim him!" I don"t think Liv Tyler is a good actress, and her over-presence in Jackson's LOTR films really irritated me. That sequence was so bad...to this day I roll my eyes every time I see it and get upset...lol...ugh!!
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Clearly they substituted Arwen for Glorfindel to be "progressive" / appease the female demographic of the audience. I have no problem with strong female characters -- but if you want stalwart heroines -- write an original story, don't change the source material!mkaroly wrote: ↑Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:56 pm Aside from ROTK being way too long (get to Mount Doom already!), I hated the sequence where Arwen rescues Frodo and then tells the ringwraits "If you want him, come and claim him!" I don"t think Liv Tyler is a good actress, and her over-presence in Jackson's LOTR films really irritated me. That sequence was so bad...to this day I roll my eyes every time I see it and get upset...lol...ugh!!
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Flight Into Danger aka Runway Zero-Eight (1958) by Arthur Hailey
-We all know how "Airplane" began as a spoof remake of the late 50s film "Zero Hour" which was based on this book by Arthur Hailey. Skimming through the Hailey original shows a more compact story than what "Zero Hour" became. None of the character names that "Airplane" used from "Zero Hour" are present (the pilot's name is George Spencer, not Ted Stryker), but still there are these three priceless gems from the original novel that made their way into later immortality.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
“I’ll tell you,” said Baird. “It means this. Out of a total field of fifty-five our one chance of survival depends on there being a person aboard this airplane who is not only qualified to land it but who also didn’t have fish for dinner tonight.” His words hung between them as they stood there, staring at each other.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
"It's a different kind of flying altogether."
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
“George. That was probably the lousiest landing in the history of this airport. So don’t ever ask us for a job as a pilot. But there are some of us here who’d like to shake your hand, and later we’ll buy you a drink."
-We all know how "Airplane" began as a spoof remake of the late 50s film "Zero Hour" which was based on this book by Arthur Hailey. Skimming through the Hailey original shows a more compact story than what "Zero Hour" became. None of the character names that "Airplane" used from "Zero Hour" are present (the pilot's name is George Spencer, not Ted Stryker), but still there are these three priceless gems from the original novel that made their way into later immortality.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
“I’ll tell you,” said Baird. “It means this. Out of a total field of fifty-five our one chance of survival depends on there being a person aboard this airplane who is not only qualified to land it but who also didn’t have fish for dinner tonight.” His words hung between them as they stood there, staring at each other.
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
"It's a different kind of flying altogether."
******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
“George. That was probably the lousiest landing in the history of this airport. So don’t ever ask us for a job as a pilot. But there are some of us here who’d like to shake your hand, and later we’ll buy you a drink."
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
I had no idea Airplane was actually based on a book.
To tell you the truth, I have still never seen the film!
To tell you the truth, I have still never seen the film!
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Love Airplane. Still holds up.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
WATERSHIP DOWN by Richard Adams. Written in 1972, Adams's book tells the story about a group of rabbits from a warren somewhere in England. One of the rabbits (named Fiver) has a prophetic premonition that the warren needs to pack up and find somewhere else to live. His brother Hazel feels Fiver's premonition is serious enough to take to the Chief Rabbit, who rejects Hazel's suggestion to leave. Hazel and Fiver decide to leave the warren anyway, and a group of rabbits leave with them. The story follows the adventures of this group of rabbits as they look for a safer place to live and eventually find it at a place called Watership Down. I read this book for summer reading between seventh and eights grade I think (it might have been in-between sixth and seventh grade). At the time my brother and I had pet rabbits as well. I am revealing all this because WATERSHIP DOWN is my all-time favorite work of fiction, and reading it again recently brought back so many memories of childhood as well as my love for our rabbits back then.
There were a few things I really loved about the book as a kid. First, it has its own religious mythology and folklore associated with it. At several very important points in the story Adams has a rabbit (Dandelion mostly) tell stories about the Prince Rabbit, El-ahrairah. These stories serve to draw a parallel between the Prince Rabbit in their mythology/folklore with Hazel, the group's Chief Rabbit. Like the Prince Rabbit in the stories Hazel must use cunning, trickery, demonstrate courage, and any number of things in order to overcome obstacles and do what's right for his warren. Second, the book has its own glossary of terms which the rabbits use (for example, a "hrududu" is a truck or car), which I always found very cool. Third, I loved the fact that the story was not shy about showing the darker side of the rabbits' existence - the battles they have and the loss of life they experienced. It all seemed so believable to me. The same things impress me about this book now. WATERSHIP DOWN is about friendship, courage, danger, sacrifice, spirituality, leadership, and adventure. It is a journey story that the author bookends extremely well in the first and last paragraphs of the book. By the end you feel like you have traveled this journey with the rabbits and become part of their group. When I was a kid I cried at the end, and I still find the ending to be incredibly powerful and moving.
If I were to criticize the book in any way it would be in its geographical descriptions of direction, where the rabbits went, etc. There is a map at the beginning of the book which one can look at, but for whatever I reason I find it hard to follow the action sometimes because I don't follow his directional descriptions in the book. WATERSHIP DOWN is full of descriptions of different plants, and I believe the locations Adams describes in the book are real locations. Generally speaking the rabbits have just enough personality to distinguish one voice from another, and a few of the characters in the book have noticeable depth and complexity to them. The book is not shy in its pro-animal/pro-environmental message; it is critical of humanity's treatment of both animals and the environment. The book is also not shy about broaching the subjects of suffering, oppression, violence, and death. Yet Adams engages with these more serious subjects in a way that never talks down to its audience; in fact, one of the great things about this book is how both adults and older kids can read it and "relate" to it. The story is not too childish or too mature - it is right where it needs to be. At times the book of quite dry in a very English way, but it ultimately does not detract from how imaginative and moving the story is as a whole. It is still my all-time favorite work of fiction, and Adams's sequel TALES FROM WATERSHIP DOWN (written in 1996) fills in some of the post-Woundwort adventures of the Watership Down Warren.
Martin Rosen directed an animated feature of WATERSHIP DOWN in 1978. It runs 92 minutes, and since the book is about 400+ pages there was no way he could film every single moment and occurrence in the book. Thus, Rosen distillation of the novel into a movie is respectable and captures much of the actions/situations contained in the book as well as its spirit. He had some great actors do the voicings (for example, John Hurt, Denholm Elliott, Ralph Richardson, and Zero Mostel); the score by Angela Morely is very pastoral with a couple of strong themes (she used a memorable saxophone melody to characterize Keehar the bird, for example). The animation is not polished like Disney animation; the film uses different kinds of animation (abstract/cartoonish, modernist/realism, etc.) to tell its story; Rosen went so far as to visit the locations found in the book to lend some authenticity to the film's animated sequences (as far as backgrounds went). Despite being an animated film it is not really a kid's film in the sense that the violence is pretty graphic; when Bigwig gets caught in a snare, for example, the film is effectively disturbing and unsettling but not over-the-top in its depictions. I liked that Rosen et. al. were willing to include the violence/unsettling stuff because it is an integral part of the book. The rabbits' expressions and movements were very well done as well.
If I were to be critical of the film, there are two things that really stand out as missing from the film. First, there is little to no humor in the film. In the book Bigwig has a very dry sense of humor (in a very British way), but he still cracked me up. Keehar is kind of funny in the movie, but at times the film is so dry that it begs for something to make it a bit more engaging. Second (and perhaps most important for me), Rosen et. al. missed a huge opportunity to include those stories about El-ahrairah as a means of foreshadowing Hazel's growth and development as a leader. Those stories were so integral in drawing that parallel between Hazel and the Prince Rabbit that I found it to be disappointing that they could not be included in the film. Despite these flaws, I admire Rosen (a self-professed huge fan of the book) for doing what he did in making in this film; he and the animators obviously loved the source material and have a profound respect for the story. Although I like the movie (and would give it probably a 7/10), the book is much, much better and the more rewarding journey.
There were a few things I really loved about the book as a kid. First, it has its own religious mythology and folklore associated with it. At several very important points in the story Adams has a rabbit (Dandelion mostly) tell stories about the Prince Rabbit, El-ahrairah. These stories serve to draw a parallel between the Prince Rabbit in their mythology/folklore with Hazel, the group's Chief Rabbit. Like the Prince Rabbit in the stories Hazel must use cunning, trickery, demonstrate courage, and any number of things in order to overcome obstacles and do what's right for his warren. Second, the book has its own glossary of terms which the rabbits use (for example, a "hrududu" is a truck or car), which I always found very cool. Third, I loved the fact that the story was not shy about showing the darker side of the rabbits' existence - the battles they have and the loss of life they experienced. It all seemed so believable to me. The same things impress me about this book now. WATERSHIP DOWN is about friendship, courage, danger, sacrifice, spirituality, leadership, and adventure. It is a journey story that the author bookends extremely well in the first and last paragraphs of the book. By the end you feel like you have traveled this journey with the rabbits and become part of their group. When I was a kid I cried at the end, and I still find the ending to be incredibly powerful and moving.
If I were to criticize the book in any way it would be in its geographical descriptions of direction, where the rabbits went, etc. There is a map at the beginning of the book which one can look at, but for whatever I reason I find it hard to follow the action sometimes because I don't follow his directional descriptions in the book. WATERSHIP DOWN is full of descriptions of different plants, and I believe the locations Adams describes in the book are real locations. Generally speaking the rabbits have just enough personality to distinguish one voice from another, and a few of the characters in the book have noticeable depth and complexity to them. The book is not shy in its pro-animal/pro-environmental message; it is critical of humanity's treatment of both animals and the environment. The book is also not shy about broaching the subjects of suffering, oppression, violence, and death. Yet Adams engages with these more serious subjects in a way that never talks down to its audience; in fact, one of the great things about this book is how both adults and older kids can read it and "relate" to it. The story is not too childish or too mature - it is right where it needs to be. At times the book of quite dry in a very English way, but it ultimately does not detract from how imaginative and moving the story is as a whole. It is still my all-time favorite work of fiction, and Adams's sequel TALES FROM WATERSHIP DOWN (written in 1996) fills in some of the post-Woundwort adventures of the Watership Down Warren.
Martin Rosen directed an animated feature of WATERSHIP DOWN in 1978. It runs 92 minutes, and since the book is about 400+ pages there was no way he could film every single moment and occurrence in the book. Thus, Rosen distillation of the novel into a movie is respectable and captures much of the actions/situations contained in the book as well as its spirit. He had some great actors do the voicings (for example, John Hurt, Denholm Elliott, Ralph Richardson, and Zero Mostel); the score by Angela Morely is very pastoral with a couple of strong themes (she used a memorable saxophone melody to characterize Keehar the bird, for example). The animation is not polished like Disney animation; the film uses different kinds of animation (abstract/cartoonish, modernist/realism, etc.) to tell its story; Rosen went so far as to visit the locations found in the book to lend some authenticity to the film's animated sequences (as far as backgrounds went). Despite being an animated film it is not really a kid's film in the sense that the violence is pretty graphic; when Bigwig gets caught in a snare, for example, the film is effectively disturbing and unsettling but not over-the-top in its depictions. I liked that Rosen et. al. were willing to include the violence/unsettling stuff because it is an integral part of the book. The rabbits' expressions and movements were very well done as well.
If I were to be critical of the film, there are two things that really stand out as missing from the film. First, there is little to no humor in the film. In the book Bigwig has a very dry sense of humor (in a very British way), but he still cracked me up. Keehar is kind of funny in the movie, but at times the film is so dry that it begs for something to make it a bit more engaging. Second (and perhaps most important for me), Rosen et. al. missed a huge opportunity to include those stories about El-ahrairah as a means of foreshadowing Hazel's growth and development as a leader. Those stories were so integral in drawing that parallel between Hazel and the Prince Rabbit that I found it to be disappointing that they could not be included in the film. Despite these flaws, I admire Rosen (a self-professed huge fan of the book) for doing what he did in making in this film; he and the animators obviously loved the source material and have a profound respect for the story. Although I like the movie (and would give it probably a 7/10), the book is much, much better and the more rewarding journey.
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Slightly off-topic, but this thread reminded me of a completely hilarious letter to the editor I read in Starlog Magazine back in 1982. This one reader was beside himself that all these great moments (and clever lines of dialog) which appeared in the novelization for Star Trek II had been "cut out of the movie".
That had to be one of the funniest things I ever read in that magazine.
That had to be one of the funniest things I ever read in that magazine.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Well, novelizations do sometimes contain vestiges of earlier script draft treatments, but a lot of the time it can be the novelist taking advantage to just wing it. I have to admit that McIntyre's novelization turned me off because it had the most offensive line I can ever recall coming across when during Chekov's search of the Botany Bay cargo hold, he comes across the books on the table and she has him thinking: "Bible? 20th Century mythology if he remembered correctly." And as if to carry on this point, when Spock later on says to Kirk, "It would help if I knew what Genesis is" she left out the next line from the film, "Beyond the Biblical reference."
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
THE TERMINAL MAN by Michael Crichton. Harry Benson, a computer engineer who specializes in AI, suffers from psychomotor epilepsy as a result of a car accident. Whenever he has a seizure he blacks out and commits horrendous acts of violence. In an effort to curb his violent behavior the Neuropsychiatric Research Unit at University Hospital in Los Angeles, headed by Dr. Roger McPherson, decides to try an experimental surgery on him (with his consent). The surgery, which will be performed by Dr. John Ellis and Dr. Roger Morris, involves the positioning of electrodes in Benson's brain. These electrodes will act like a "brain pacemaker" - whenever he has a seizure the electrodes are supposed to shut the seizure down and thus "cure" Benson of his violent behavior...or so they hypothesize. Dr. Janet Ross (Benson's psychiatrist) is against the procedure, for Benson has an underlying psychosis in which he believes machines/computers are competing against humanity and are taking over the world. She does not believe the surgery will cure him of his root psychosis. Unfortunately for her, the surgery moves forward, though afterwards the team discovers that Benson (intelligent man that he is) learns to control the electrode stimulations, which results in his becoming a great danger to all involved in the surgery.
Crichton's book is an incredibly fast read; it ups the ante from THE ADROMEDA STRAIN and contains a great deal of suspense, tension, and good storytelling that ends in a very memorable climax. The back cover of my copy of the book states that this novel is "A modern Frankenstein from the author of Jurassic Park," and that is really spot on. In having the surgery Benson in essence becomes the machine/computer he so greatly feared. To be sure, Dr. McPherson himself even says post-surgery that "We have created a man who is one single, large, complex computer terminal" (page 78). The ethics/morality surrounding this surgery and whether or not it is appropriate for this patient really anchor the novel; Dr. McPherson comes across as a very arrogant, selfish scientist out for himself and progress more than for patient safety. Dr. Ellis is himself quite arrogant and convinced that he is doing the right thing (contrary to Dr. Ross' appeals). Dr. Janet Ross, a strong female character, is the ethical/moral voice in the story; she has developed a solid psychiatrist/patient relationship with Benson, and this is another foundational aspect of the book. The story takes place over 5 days; the operation is very suspenseful, and from the very start the reader knows that nothing good can come out of this procedure. Ultimately, the physicians (except for Dr. Ross) come off as the villains whereas Benson, despite his actions and creepiness, comes off as a victim. Very well written and an enjoyable read.
The book was written in 1972; the movie came out in 1974 and was directed by Mike Hodges. The film has that unsettling, creepy 70s feel to it, especially in the hospital scenes. There is hardly any music in the film, only a piece by JS Bach that is played on piano by Glenn Gould here and there. It is effective in adding an unsettling and tense atmosphere to the movie when it does appear. There are several things that are different in the film from the book, though I will only mention a few that really bothered me. First, the character of Benson was played by George Segal - he did a great job acting out the epileptic seizures, but in the book the character of Harry Benson is described as "a meek, pudgy, thirty-four year old man, with a sort of permanently bewildered air about him" (page 7). I did not feel Segal matched up with this description so I was a bit disappointed in what imagined Benson should look like while reading the book. Segal seemed too have too much of a dominating presence in the film which, in my opinion, worked against the characterization of Benson and the sympathy one had for him from the book. Second, the film chose not to accentuate the doctor/patient relationship between Dr. Ross and Benson, which, at least in the novel, becomes very important in the climax of the story. Instead we just assume their relationship from the film, and I think that takes away from an emotional aspect the film could have had in it (maybe the filmmakers chose to disregard relationship in the book due to pacing); it also takes away from the horror of Benson's attack on Dr. Ross while overstimulated.
Third, the ending if the film is completely different from the book, and I feel it is vastly less effective. In the book Benson, Ross, and Anders (a police officer) have a showdown in the hospital's main computer room in the basement. This brings the themes of Benson's psychosis along with his relationship with Dr. Ross together in a memorable climax. It makes sense; unfortunately the makers of the film decided to wholly jettison Benson's psychosis (though they do have him destroying a robot in his lab). They end up having him kill a priest in a Roman Catholic Church and be hunted down in a graveyard (not at all in the book). Aside from the mention of God in a later part in the film, I see no logical reason to have chosen to go this way with the ending of the film. It is so much less dramatic and comes off as silly and ill-conceived (maybe the makers of the film wanted to save money by not having to build a central computer room). Huge missed opportunity there. Finally, the film chooses to underplay the arrogance and selfish ambition of Dr. McPherson (much like Spielberg would do with Hammond's character in JURASSIC PARK). Richard Dysart (who plays Dr. Ellis) is very arrogant, but I feel the makers of the film missed an opportunity there to really explore the issues of ethics/morality that are so prevalent in the book. There are other things I didn't like about the adaptation of the book into a film, but I will leave it there for now. All in all I feel that the film is a weak representation of the book; the filmmakers could have done a better job adapting the book into a movie (which I would give a 3/10).
Crichton's book is an incredibly fast read; it ups the ante from THE ADROMEDA STRAIN and contains a great deal of suspense, tension, and good storytelling that ends in a very memorable climax. The back cover of my copy of the book states that this novel is "A modern Frankenstein from the author of Jurassic Park," and that is really spot on. In having the surgery Benson in essence becomes the machine/computer he so greatly feared. To be sure, Dr. McPherson himself even says post-surgery that "We have created a man who is one single, large, complex computer terminal" (page 78). The ethics/morality surrounding this surgery and whether or not it is appropriate for this patient really anchor the novel; Dr. McPherson comes across as a very arrogant, selfish scientist out for himself and progress more than for patient safety. Dr. Ellis is himself quite arrogant and convinced that he is doing the right thing (contrary to Dr. Ross' appeals). Dr. Janet Ross, a strong female character, is the ethical/moral voice in the story; she has developed a solid psychiatrist/patient relationship with Benson, and this is another foundational aspect of the book. The story takes place over 5 days; the operation is very suspenseful, and from the very start the reader knows that nothing good can come out of this procedure. Ultimately, the physicians (except for Dr. Ross) come off as the villains whereas Benson, despite his actions and creepiness, comes off as a victim. Very well written and an enjoyable read.
The book was written in 1972; the movie came out in 1974 and was directed by Mike Hodges. The film has that unsettling, creepy 70s feel to it, especially in the hospital scenes. There is hardly any music in the film, only a piece by JS Bach that is played on piano by Glenn Gould here and there. It is effective in adding an unsettling and tense atmosphere to the movie when it does appear. There are several things that are different in the film from the book, though I will only mention a few that really bothered me. First, the character of Benson was played by George Segal - he did a great job acting out the epileptic seizures, but in the book the character of Harry Benson is described as "a meek, pudgy, thirty-four year old man, with a sort of permanently bewildered air about him" (page 7). I did not feel Segal matched up with this description so I was a bit disappointed in what imagined Benson should look like while reading the book. Segal seemed too have too much of a dominating presence in the film which, in my opinion, worked against the characterization of Benson and the sympathy one had for him from the book. Second, the film chose not to accentuate the doctor/patient relationship between Dr. Ross and Benson, which, at least in the novel, becomes very important in the climax of the story. Instead we just assume their relationship from the film, and I think that takes away from an emotional aspect the film could have had in it (maybe the filmmakers chose to disregard relationship in the book due to pacing); it also takes away from the horror of Benson's attack on Dr. Ross while overstimulated.
Third, the ending if the film is completely different from the book, and I feel it is vastly less effective. In the book Benson, Ross, and Anders (a police officer) have a showdown in the hospital's main computer room in the basement. This brings the themes of Benson's psychosis along with his relationship with Dr. Ross together in a memorable climax. It makes sense; unfortunately the makers of the film decided to wholly jettison Benson's psychosis (though they do have him destroying a robot in his lab). They end up having him kill a priest in a Roman Catholic Church and be hunted down in a graveyard (not at all in the book). Aside from the mention of God in a later part in the film, I see no logical reason to have chosen to go this way with the ending of the film. It is so much less dramatic and comes off as silly and ill-conceived (maybe the makers of the film wanted to save money by not having to build a central computer room). Huge missed opportunity there. Finally, the film chooses to underplay the arrogance and selfish ambition of Dr. McPherson (much like Spielberg would do with Hammond's character in JURASSIC PARK). Richard Dysart (who plays Dr. Ellis) is very arrogant, but I feel the makers of the film missed an opportunity there to really explore the issues of ethics/morality that are so prevalent in the book. There are other things I didn't like about the adaptation of the book into a film, but I will leave it there for now. All in all I feel that the film is a weak representation of the book; the filmmakers could have done a better job adapting the book into a movie (which I would give a 3/10).
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
I have never seen the film of The Terminal Man but it was very badly received and hasnt ever been discussed much....for good reason it seems Michael!
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7061
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Star Trek often pushed a secular agenda, even back in the old series. "Who Mourns for Adonis" is clearly a metaphor for theistic beliefs of all kinds. "The Apple" depicts a society who are enslaved by an autocratic "god" (who keeps them ignorant -- and chaste), while the final scene even jokingly implies Kirk is "Satan" (for giving the natives knowledge). "Return of the Archons" shows a similarly puritanical society, ruled by followers of a long-dead "wise man" (whose true teachings have been distorted by those in power); the annual "festival" is required due to people suppressing "natural instincts" for the rest of the year. Then of course there is the Keeper, who causes Captain Pike to experience the agony of hellfire, drawing on "a fable you once heard in childhood".Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:56 pm I have to admit that McIntyre's novelization turned me off because it had the most offensive line I can ever recall coming across when during Chekov's search of the Botany Bay cargo hold, he comes across the books on the table and she has him thinking: "Bible? 20th Century mythology if he remembered correctly." And as if to carry on this point, when Spock later on says to Kirk, "It would help if I knew what Genesis is" she left out the next line from the film, "Beyond the Biblical reference."
All things considered, it's astonishing that an episode like "Bread and Circuses" even got made!
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8622
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
I won't doubt that. "Adonias" did appease the censor with Kirk's line about "we find the one quite sufficient", but I certainly get that the broader message was seemingly a slam on all faiths and not just Greco-Romanism. The key was that we didn't have anything so blatantly in your face which wasn't the case a generation later and there at least was the occasional concession. And Trek II the movie in fact is more in keeping with the earlier spirit of those times when you have Scotty of all things playing "Amazing Grace" for Spock's service. (No reference of course to that in McIntyre's novelization)
Much more than "Bread And Circuses", I am amazed how Roddenberry was able to write one of the most profound Christmas episodes of all time, "The Hanging Cross" for Season 1 of "Have Gun Will Travel".
Much more than "Bread And Circuses", I am amazed how Roddenberry was able to write one of the most profound Christmas episodes of all time, "The Hanging Cross" for Season 1 of "Have Gun Will Travel".