I thought Chrichton’s Eaters of the Dead was an ok book - ok, still some shabby science, at least there was no theme park in it. I did not see how they could turn it into a movie until the 13th Warrior came out, and then they simply omitted the Neandertal theory that at least made the book interesting. All those theme parks - Was MC traumatized on a childhood trip to Disneyland or something?
Here is the article. It’s worth reading even if you don’t have a book to sell.
Spoken like someone who has never read Congo. You lucky, lucky man.
The sad truth is, of all Crichton’s books, Sphere probably had the strongest, most coherent, least contrived ending. And I do not offer that comment up as mitigating the end of Sphere in the least. It’s as bad as you said: the rest of his stuff is worse.
Thank goodness. I thought I was the only one that saw Crichton in that light. And there are those that have attempted to copy his style, with slightly better results.
I’ve heard her speak on this subject, but I’ll bet you five to the dollar that 15 minutes after she’s planted in the ground, the heirs will sell the rights.
This thread reminds me of the “V.I. Warshawski” movie, which was a truly horrible movie about a very good mystery series, and starring Kathleen Turner, who was perfect for the role. They could have just filmed the books and turned out a decent movie, but no, they had to jam the plots together from two movies and have the men cracking crude sexist jokes about Warshawski. A truly urging experience.
I enjoyed The Andromeda Strain when it was broadcast on television when I was in high school, and was inspired to check the book out at the school library. I enjoyed that too.
Then, when I was in college, I found a Crichton book that I picked up on the strength of his name alone. I can’t recall its title, but it turned out to be a memoir. I was quite impressed to learn that he was actually a licensed physician before he published his first novel, but it didn’t take too many pages to decide he was, at bottom, a whiny, pretentious, bitter, and somewhat vindictive bastard. I couldn’t figure out why he wanted the world to know that, though.
Anyway, the doctor’s memoir cured me of needing to read any more of his novels.
Hey, I read Congo and saw the movie! Pity me! Years later I still shudder.
“Oh no! The volcano is exploding! Good thing we brought this hot air balloon with us!”
Of all the Crichton books I liked Eaters of the Dead. It had the added benefit of being short. And I do think that 13th Warrior is a very good adaptation, and a pretty darn good action movie as well.
I’ll try to answer the OP’s original questio nwithout offering any editorial comment on the quality of Michael Crichton’s books. In this case, I happen to think it’s irrelevant whether you like his books. The question is, why do moviemakers take a popular book, presumably one that they admire, and then change everything around for the big screen?
That’s a valid question. Even if you don’t like Crichton, you can probably think of movies based on books by authors you DO like that depart radically from the original source material. How do you react then?
Now, in general, I don’t get outraged by moviemakers who fail to treat the original source material as sacrosanct. Fact is, film and print are VERY different media, and what works brilliantly in one may not work at all in the other.
Sometimes, when a moviemaker is doing an adaptation of a greta book, he ruins the film by deviating too much from the original material. But there are just as many cases in which moviemakers are TOO faithful to the original book, and end up making a film that’s lifeless and dull.
Moreover, a book can take its time introducing and developing developing characters. A movie, on the other hand, has time constraints, so the audience has to get to know the essential characters in a hurry- and ideally, there shouldn’t be too many characters for the viewer to keep track of. So, if you’re trying to adapt a sprawling, complicated book into a film, you may find it necessary to excise numerous characters, or to skip numerous incidents from the book.
The film version of “L.A. Confidential” was excellent. It was also very different from the original novel. But the truth is, there was probably no way to do a faithful adaptation and fit it into a 2 hour movie (a TV miniseries, maybe). To turn that book into a film, choices had to be made. For the most part, Curtis Hanson made the right choices. And in the end, even James Ellroy was very pleased with the film.
I haven’t seen the film version of “Timeline,” and don’t plan to. I did read the book, and it was just typical enjoyable-but-forgettable airline reading. The source material wasn’t an artistic or literary masterpiece to begin with, just latter-day pulp fiction. So, even if the film deviates drastically from Crichton’s original story, it’s no great loss. I’m sure Crichton himself couldn’t care less.
Do I EVER get really angry about movie adaptations? Sure- when FUNDAMENTAL parts of the plots are changed for bogus reasons. I was never a big fan of Crichton’s “Rising Sun,” but I found it disgusting that the film version changed the identity of the killer from a Japanese executive to a white American! And I was equally sickened when the film version of Tom Clancy’s"The Sum of All Fears" changed the villains from Arab terrorists to Eastern European neo-Nazis.
That kind of change is cowardly and unforgiveable. But most of the time, change is necessary. A book isn’t a movie.
Timeline was unusually bad as far as Crichton characters go. The womanizer is distracted by a woman and walks into a tree?
Ugh. That single moment of “comedy” was enough for me to put down his books forever. I don’t care how many more zillion-hour bus trips I take, there will be no Crichton.
And why do people keep ripping on his theme park books? I can only recall Jurassic Park having that premise. What else?
Well, Westworld was about a TPGW (Theme Park Gone Wrong). The jackass billionaire computer genius in Timeline (the book, anyway) wanted – I’m not making this up – to use the fantastic scientific miracle of time travel in order to create – a theme park! Come to think of it, his plotting is like a roller coaster. The guy is into theme parks.
Jurassic Park, The Lost World: Jurassic Park II, Jurassic Park III, and Westworld (among the movies directly credited to him) were all set in theme parks. Futureworld and the TV series Beyond Westworld, which he didn’t have any direct influence in, were sequels to his works that were set in theme parks.
You guys are tough.
I, personally, like Crichton. I like his books. I’ve read damn near all of them. The only two that I didn’t like were Congo and Timeline. And those are the only two of his books that have anything to do with theme parks. Hell, I can name several of his books that don’t involve “things man wasn’t meant to know”. Congo, Sphere, Disclosure, Eaters of the Dead, Airframe, etc. Crichton’s books never claim to be works of art. Whoever said that Crichton’s books are just fun reading for long plane trips is right. Just stop looking for hidden meanings and enjoy them for what they are: fun entertainment.
I forgot about the theme park idea in Time Line. Maybe I suppressed it.
I’ve never read Westworld. Is it good?
I liked the book Bonfire of the Vanities, but the movie was horrible. I thought they did a good job with Presumed Innocent- which I read before I saw the movie- and A Time to Kill, which I also read before I saw the movie. The best book-to-movie that I’ve seen lately was Seabiscuit, probably because it was non-fiction and didn’t leave a lot of room for messing around.
Quoth CrazyCatLady:
The rumors of his death were greatly exaggerated. As were the rumors of his burial and the rumors of the scorched-earth firebombing of his grave, apparently.
Really, I can’t understand why any movie would make large departures from its source material. If it’s good, leave it as is, and if it’s bad, then don’t use it. Or at the very least, if you’re going to be fundamentally changing a story, then change the title and names of the characters and bill it as “inspired by…”. You piss off less fans that way, and you might even save money on the licensing.
I’ve read all of Chrichton’s books, and he’s a little formulaic, yes, but less than Grisham, and WAY less than Clancy. Clancy needs an editor and to stop having his right-wing speeches shoved out of his characters’ mouths. It’s pretty bad when I nearly grimace at parts of his books even though I mostly agree in principle.
The thing that keeps me reading Chrichton’s books is that they actually have plots, and that I’m not concious at every turn that I’m reading something that has been written by a guy sitting at his desk. Most authors simply cannot write in a natural style. It’s like watching Three’s Company, which never has a moment of believable acting, ever.
Any other suggestions of ficiton writers who are able to have characters talk like real people?