Well . . .
Speaking of Kubrick: A Clockwork Orange - good film, unreadable book.
Eh, I thought the Jurassic Park movies were dumbed down from the books.
Well, Stephen Jay Gould agreed with me (his review of the book and the movie starts about halfway down at 3).
Not that I didn’t like the movie, I just didn’t appreciate having to turn my brain off to do so. “Mr. DNA?” Yeesh.
True for the most part, but not entirely. The very next film, **On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, stays rematkably close to the book. Then Diamonds Are Forever veered sharply away from Fleming’s novel (although they still published it with the movie poster as a cover – the last Fleming Bond novel to be published as a movie tie-in. Later movie novelizations were written by others.)
That stayed the case for all the subsequent films, with one possible exception – For Your Eyes Only in 1981 drew mostly from two short stories in the collection of that title – The title story "For Your Eyes Only’ and the longer “Risico” (with a bit from the novel “Live and Let Die” thrown in as well). It almost qualifies as faithful. They coulda re-issued the novel as a tie-in without anyone rewriting it.
So stephen jay gould is an idiot. I felt like I was reading the tenth instalment of the Xanth series when I read it. You certainly turned off your brain to read the book.
They did publish paperbacks of *Live and Let Die * and *The Man with the Golden Gun * with cover art from the films. And there was a 1981 edition of *For Your Eyes Only * with “Now a Motion Picture” onthe cover.
(I used to own 'em–in fact, TMWTGG with a photo cover of Roger Moore, Britt Ekland and Maud Adams was the first Fleming book I ever bought.)
No, *he * isn’t–or rather wasn’t–and you’re rude. It’s a difference of opinion, not fact. Lighten up already. :rolleyes:
Thanks for the link, Dr. Rieux - I was particularly interested in his para comparing science museums and amusement parks, having worked in both. Combining the two is something we in the interactive science centre field have been aiming at for decades.
(Oh, and I can’t write amusement park without accidentally typoing: amuseument.)
All three of which featured nearly identical plots, incidentally. 
Fell SO hard, told ALL my friends, corrected complete strangers mid-sentence (“actually, the movie is based on a very old book, Goldman adapted it after reading it to his son”), so SO embarrassed when I found out the truth.
Worse than learning about Santa.
Alfred Hitchcock’s “Lamb to the iSlaughter” was much better than Roald Dahl’s Short Story it was based on. I image The Birds was also better than the story, but I never read it.
I have (It was in a 1960s paperback anthology called “Things with Claws” that wasn’t anywhere near as creepy as the title suggests). The movie was definitely better, even though Daphne duMaurier wrote the story.
!!
News to me – I thought I had all the Bond books, but I’ve never seen these, even i used bookmk stores.
Yep. I thought the story version of The Birds was quite dull.
I have to disagree with a couple of posters re: Gone With The Wind, though. I loved the book, disliked the movie. For one thing, who wants to watch anything that’s four hours long? For another, I think a lot of the characters’ complexities were taken out. I found the movie somewhat interesting, if only for the costumes. However, I admit that the casting of Scarlett and Rhett was perfect. I never read the book without envisioning Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable. Of course, it may have helped that they were on the cover of every paperback version I ever read to tatters…
I’m probably the only person on the planet who read Gone With the Wind before seeing the movie. (Well, the only person after the movie was made! 
) and I agree with you, DB. I don’t even think the costumes are all that good; so much was made in the book about showing one’s bosom before a certain hour, and at what age a girl graduates to wearing her hair up that this lack of adherance to these “rules” in the movie annoys me.
drillrod mentions Stephen King’s Carrie … even King thinks Brian DePalma, student of Hitchcock, does a better job in developing the themes in the movie!
I have one to add of my own: Last of the Mohicans. I’ll never forget listening to a review on NPR when it came out. I forget the name of the reviewer (it seems like he worked for the Washington Post), but I referred to him as The Man Who Hates Everything. For the first time, he gave a glowing review of the movie starring Daniel Day Lewis and Madeline Stowe. Actually, glowing is too mild a word. He was embarrassing effusive in his praise! I almost cringed but immediately set out to see it. After slogging through the book in college, anything had to be better. It was. I love that movie. It’s achingly beautiful. He concluded, “There is no reason to ever read the book again!” Take that, James Fenimore Cooper!
AnnieXmas --IMS, Scarlett’s hair was actually auburn in the book.
The costumes (I once watched a documentary on the making of GWTW) were based on genuine dress of the period. One of Scarlett’s younger sisters (in the movie-can’t remember the actor’s name) said to the director that he could save money on the undergarments that wouldn’t show etc. He looked at her and said, "but you’d know. You must be an O’Hara). So, all the garments were authentic.
Scarlett, in the book and the movie, defies those very customs–she chooses to wear that low cut dress to the barbeque. Mammy even has a scene in the movie about it. If you look, the other women are all wearing appropriate dress.
Sorry for the hijack.
My Fair Lady was a better movie (even with Audrey Hepburn usurping Julie Andrew’s role) than the Greek myth it came from, IMO.
The Sound of Music --treacly and saccharine as it is, is better than the book by Ms Von Trapp. (I read it in 7th grade for fun. yikes)
Well, y’know, My Fair Lady isn’t based on the myth, it’s based on George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, and, even though it sometimes copies it word-for-word, it’s not as good. (I’m not sure if you’re serious or not. Some people would be, so I’ll risk the whoosh.) I was fortunate enough to see a stage performance of Pygmalion before I ever saw My Fair Lady, and it blew me away. Where the movie (or the stage play – I’ve seen both) didn’t copy Shaw, it was pedestrian and dull.
One thing I’ve never understood about the Pygmalion-to-My Fair Lady thing, byy the way, is the ending change. Who’s really responsible?
I’m not going to bother with spoilers for this. In My Fair Lady, Eliza goes back to Higgions. In Pygmalion, she marries Freddy. I don’t blame her one bit. Shaw even wrote a lengthy postscript to the publiashed play telling their story after the events of the play.
Alan Jay Lerner, writing in the published edition of “My Fair Lady”, asks forgiveness for changing the ending, saying that he didn’t think Shaw was right. So Lerner changed it, right?
Then howcum the ending of the Leslie Howard/Wendy Hiller 1938 film version has Eliza getting back together with Higgins, and not Freddy? Lerner couldn’t have been the one to do it – and it 's impossible to believe that he wasn’t familiar with the screen version. Was he trying to take credit for something he wasn’t due? The IMDB page lists five writing credits besides Shaw’s, although two are listed as “scenario”. That’s at least three other people – Ian Dalrymple, Anatole de Grunwald, and Kay Walsh – who could’ve been the ones tresponsible for the kitschy ending.
Forgot the IMDB link:
This page confirms my recollection about the changed ending:
Shaw, by the way, wrote additional scenes and scenarios for a filmed version – my copy of the play has these as interpolations, and the above page claims he wrote the ballroom scene for the movie. I’m assuming that they adapted his written scenario. But even his motion picture treatment still has Eliza going off with Freddy.
Okay, even more curious – there seems to have been a 1937 German film version. The IMDB site claims that Shaw hated it “because of the ending”. Did this version have her going off with Higgins, too? I know nothing more about this version. If so, there are four more people who could have changed the ending the first time.
Or is it possible that everyone in the movies prefers a version where the feisty, independent Eliza meekly submits to the self-centered Higgins?
What is IMS? I never knew of any version in which Scarlett’s hair was not black.
As for My Fair Lady, the ending has always troubled me. It would be a neat little love story if Eliza returned to Henry…and y’know, if they loved each other. However, it’s made clear that they don’t. Isn’t it? What is Eliza returning to, exactly?