It made perfect sense to me, and that’s at an ungodly hour of the morning, too.
dropzone, I’d love to know what book you read that you’ve mistaken for Starship Troopers.
I’m totally on board with this. The movie made one story out of several, and changed Susan Calvin’s character, but one thing that you can’t accuse it of is not dealing with the evolution of robots to think critically about the three laws. It’s all right there in the final story, where robots are making recommendations to world governments based on what will do the least harm to humanity. It’s a bit simplistic in the film, but it’s definitely there.
Oh, and All the King’s Men (haven’t seen the Sean Penn version) simply has far far too much going on in the book for it to ever be captured decently on film. Unless they make it a 3-part 7 hour trilogy or something.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “little more”. It’s certainly more introspective and even-handed than most war movies even if it doesn’t dwell on that part of the movie for more than three or so scenes. Never having read the book, what themes of the book are not touched on by the movie?
It has been years since I saw the movie and even more years since I read the book so excuse me if I’m a bit less than precise. I remember after seeing the movie I was disgusted that they missed the basis of the story for the sake of combat scenes.
The book was written by Ret. Gen. Hal Moore and Joe Galloway (U.S.News). The important elements to the book:
-
The history, development and use of helicopters in battle warfare which was really tested for the first time in I Drang.
-
Moore’s unqulified admiration for the helicopter pilots.
-
Moore’s admiration for the bravery of soldiers under his command and his honest account of soldiers who behaved as cowards.
-
Important: The authors went back to Vietnam and talked to commanders of the NVA. They were able to find out the tactics and decisions of the troops they were fighting. The NVA didn’t go into the battle expecting to win. They wanted to draw in the Americans so they could learn about how they fight. Then they would retreat and regroup and refine their tactics.
-
While Moore extols the bravery of the soldiers he does not promote the righteousness of the American cause.
-
The politics of the war.
-
I Drang was an early battle. Yet after the battle Moore had serious reservations as to whether the war could ever be won. There was a luncheon or restaurant scene that touched on this but it was cut out of the movie.
Here’s a cite about how the book came to be:
Note near the end, Moore says the movie is 60% accurate. (Galloway says 80%). But those percentages don’t include what was left out as always happens with a movie. The movie makers took a great book and turning it into another shoot-em-up.
As AHunter3 indicated, there is a novel by Alan E. Nourse titled The Bladerunner, but it has little in common with the movie Blade Runner aside from the title. The novel involves smuggling medical equipment, or “running blades” (like “running drugs” or “running guns”).
The Nourse novel was apparently under consideration for a film version, but nothing ever came of it. The producer for the film version of Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? remembered the title though, and felt it sounded better than anything else they’d come up with for the movie. So although the movie is a reasonable adaptation of Dick’s novel, the story has nothing to do with the Nourse novel from which its title is taken.
To further confuse things, Dick’s novel was reissued with a movie tie-in cover that said “BLADE RUNNER” in big letters and “(Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?)” in smaller letters below that.
It’s right-wing porn, like “24,” with all that crap about earning citizenship.
It wasn’t very faithful, but it had more in common with it’s source than, say, I Am Legend. Both were about a detective who was trying to find escaped androids in a world that was depopulated due to immigration to other worlds, with most of the remaining humans being poorer minorities. They both had synthetic animals replacing rare or extinct real ones, and both dealt with themes of identity, questioning who is real and who is not. Not a faithful adaptation by any means, with tons of stuff left out (like Decker’s wife) and other stuff added (the replicants he was hunting ended up being a minor plot element), but it had some similarities. Much closer adaptation than Starship Troopers, for instance.
Actually, you could say that after On Her Majesty’s Secret Service they had precious little to do with the Fleming novels – Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die, aside from nods in the direction of the original, didn’t have much to do with the novels they’re based on.
For Your Eyes only was an exception – it actually is pretty close to the story “Risico”, which is in the collection “For Your Eyes Only”, and they took the part about the crossbow-wielding female avenger from the story “For Your Eyes Only” that gave its name to the collection.
At the beginning, it looked as if they were going to do the same thing with Octopussy, but they chickened out.
The first Timothy Dalton film, The Living Daylights takes quite a few elements from the story of that title, but inflates the story (and motivations) into something very different. Similarly, the recent casino Royale is actually pretty faitthful to its roots, but with a LOT of added material. I’ll be curious to see what they do with Quantum of Solace, the first Bond film to be named after a Fleming short story since The Living Daylights.
William S. Burroughs evidently issued a copy of the book with detailed notes on turning it into a film. It must’ve caught Ridley scott’s eye, because he liked the title, if not the plot. He thanked both Burroughs and Nourse in the closing credits of Bladerunner for letting him use the title (so I assume they got paid a small sum). I liked Nourse’s book, and would like to see it filmed sometime.
For what it’s worth, I can’t say I think that the movie Bladerunner is a LOT closer to its nominal inspiration than Starship Troopers is. For all hollywood’s apparent love of Philip K. Dick, practically every film version has undergomne massive plotting and writing changes. a Scanner Darkly seems to be the closest interpretation of Dick’s original.
This definitely gets my vote! Ende’s book is amazing and very readable as an adult.
The first one is watchable (if only for nostalgia value) but the sequel is a piece of complete garbage. It’s ostensibly based on the second half of the book, but it pulls in so many strange and hollywoodified ideas that it’s pretty much the opposite of what Ende intended. I saw it once, but the big things that stick out are:
-Auryn steals your memories?
-Xayide is some kind of supervillan?
-the stupid OH NOES we must escape Fantastica before time runs out! bit.
I like to pretend this does not exist.
I thought the same thing with The Green Mile. There were holes in Steven King’s story that the screen play managed to seal up.
Did they really get it ‘wrong’ though?
Notice it wasn’t called The Orchid Thief, and getting it wrong in various ways was the point of the movie. One of the points, anyway.
But Blade Runner got the essence of what Dick’s book was about, even if it changed some elements (rather dramatically, I’ll admit), whilst Starship Troopers got none of the essence right about RAH’s book, and even managed to screw up the surface details (“We couldn’t do powersuits because you wouldn’t be able to see the actor’s faces.” Bull. It’d be no harder to do than any knights in armor movie or Outland was.)
And A Scanner Darkly, while not a bad flick, missed some of the essence of the book (as well as left out a few scenes which should have been in the film), and was hampered by having Keanu Reeves in the lead role. (The boy can’t act, I’m sorry.)
You’re wrong. He has chosen, as his life’s work, to portray a bad actor. See how good he is?
Maybe he and Verhoven should do a flick together, seeing as how Verhoven has apparently decided to portray a bad director.
FWIW, I got both jokes* and will henceforth, when the opportunity arises, refer to my own lust for Natalie by saying how much I’d like to Leon her. (She is after all, decidedly of age now.)**
- although I took “porcquel” to be a term of general derision rather than a specific desire.
** I wonder if this means I should to say that I’d like to Ron Emma Watson?
In my opinion, this is a case of the movie being better than the source book. The movie has great actors, some real intrigue, some interesting action, suspense, and even though muddled at the end, an actual plot. The book is more-or-less a routine whodunnit with forgettable characters and a pretty obvious resolution.
My contribution to the thread:
The dreadful move The Postman that turned a great David Brin novel into swiss cheese.
While the movie Ice Station Zebra took a rather small novel and made something grand, the movie The Postman took a grand novel and made something laughably stupid.
Uh-huh. Try reading the book sometime. Get someone to help you with the big words. Especially “fascism.”
Plump? Cite please! I always think of her as thin and angular.
An excerpt from Harlan Ellison’s I, Robot has this to say about Dr. Calvin: “She is a small woman, but there is a towering strength in her face. Tensile strength, that speaks to endurance, to maintaining in the imperfect world. Her mouth is thin, and her face pale. Grace lives in her features, and intelligence; but she is not an attractive woman. She is not one of those women who in later years it can be said of them , ‘She must have been a beauty when she was younger.’ Susan Calvin was always plain. And clearly, always a powerful personality.”