And I -love- the Victor Hugo ending. It’s one of the few tragedies that I really like.
But I wanted to add- Soylent Green coming from Make Room! Make Room!. The former is an entertaining movie, even if you know the spoiler. The later is a depress-o-fest that … Well… Spoiler…
Has soylent green actually as what it says it is. Sea protien.
Disagree. Great short story about a guy perceived by the lifelong resident guys of the village as a pansy, finally pushed to the point that he punches out his loudmouth asshole bro-in-law and lays him out with great skill and expediency, and folks leave him alone from then on. Annoying movie about how guys just need to pick on quiet sissy guys until they can get them to join in in the fun & fistfighting that makes men the best of friends. Twenty-minute roll-n-tumble fight. Yah, fighting is so much male-bonding fun etc.
Disney’s ending to The Little Mermaid? Not at all. In fact, there’s plenty of build-up to it, throughout the whole movie.
The Anderson ending didn’t come completely out of nowhere, but the tragedy did indeed come across as needlessly sadistic and a bit tacked on. As Leaper said, it was indeed like hitting the reader over the head with a Buick.
Anderson attempted to redeem the ending by letting the unnamed mermaid become a wispy spirit of the air, thereby cushioning her tragedy. That attempt at redemption most definitely came out of nowhere, though. As far as I’m concerned, by then it was “too little, too late.”
Scupper:
I was thinking Christine when I opened the thread. Making it about the evil car and not (also) about Roland LeBay was a massive improvement.
Dang it, all my intended posts are already taken! Yeah, Crichton would get a plot-device in his head, and he came up with some very good ones.
I wouldn’t quite say he can’t write, but he sure can’t do character development worth a damn. Especially girls and women, for some reason, but his male characters tend to be characterological disasters too. When I read his books I end up rooting for the dinosaurs or even the interplanetary plagues.
On the other hand, V is just a variation on Repent, Harlequin, said the Ticktockman.
The movie’s a bit closer.
The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie
In the book, there’s no confrontation scene, and it is much needed. The movie has a great one.
I believe there was a play, so maybe the play improved on the book and the movie took after the play, I don’t know.
I am saying only that the change I mentioned was an improvement, not that other changes to the story for the movie were.
Even then I don’t think it was a good change. What says obviously not racist more, a white guy with a black wife or a black guy with a black wife? First impressions, that is.
I haven’t read the book, but the ending to the movie always bothered me. We’re told that something is wrong with his tummy and if he plays, he’s going to die. But he plays anyway; we’re even shown shots of his tummy bleeding. But then they cut away to the ending scene where he’s right as rain with no explanation. It felt like a cheat.
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988, Steve Martin, Michael Caine) has a much snappier ending
The female lead turns out to be a bigger con artist than either of the men trying to cheat her
than the orginal Bedtime Story (1964, Marlon Brando, David Nivin, Shirley Jones) which ends with
Marlon Brando getting a bad case of remorse for trying to cheat such a sweet young thing and marrying her.
You know, I just took another look at this novel after the recent death of Peter Benchley and I’d never realized that in the book Amity is not an island! I think it works better as an island in the movie. And I realize this was changed simply because of filming purposes and not dramatic reasons…but still…
I couldn’t disagree more. I came to this thread thinking about the new King Kong. I loved the original, but I loved the new version better - mostly because I understood Kong’s motivations and the humans were more than just cannon fodder/props.
Err, that should be “I loved the new version more”
And, me, a former English teacher . . .
Well, I did think the LotR movie trilogy was far better than the books. I’m an avid reader, but the pacing of the book is so brutally off that reading it felt more often than not like a chore instead. The movies we’re far better structured.
Plus, in the book, it took Frodo 17 years to leave his house… I mean, 17 years! can the pacing get any slower?
Well, I tried to ask about changes in the plot. Not which movies are better than the book, or which parts it is an advantage to exclude in the movie.
Well, this was mentioned briefly before, but I thought the ending of *Goblet of Fire *was much better than the book. Quicker pacing, more realistic dialogue, and mercifully free of the need to explain *everything *that’s happened so far in the entire story.
Argh! I meant Prisoner of Azkaban. Sorry.
Color me silly, but isn’t removing something from the plot changing it?
The changes between “I am Legend” the novel and “Omega Man” the movie are pretty signifigant.
Clearly it’s still an adaptation and not a well… bastardization. I perfer the novel more but some like the movie more.
IIRC
In the book, the main character is a schlubby guy who for unknown reasons is immune to the plague. (I think its insinuated at one point that his job has exposed him to chemicals that together explain his immunity) In the movie he is a scientist who has developed a cure and is on his way to Washington to report when his helicopter crashes and he is forced to inject himself with the cure in order to survive.
In the novel he is literally the last normal human on planet. In the novel, there’s a rag tag group of survivors, mostly the young, who he finds.
In the end of the novel he is put to death as a monster by the new Vampire/Human society that has sprung up. In the movie a cure is made from his blood and he sacrificed himself to save the kids.