Hatrack River Writers Workshop: When movies and novels collide…

This is topic When movies and novels collide… in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000472

Posted by Pen (Member # 1526) on :

When a director decides to have a vision of a novel that he plans to incorporate into a theatrical blockbuster, it’s understandable that the movie may not be just like the book. Sometimes, the movie can be equally enjoyable, yet in a very different light. We all already know that there is a marginal difference setting the movie world clearly apart from the world of the published novelist. For instance, I thought Jurassic Park 1 and 2 were brilliant films. And what about Peter Jackson directing the visually, spectacular, epic Lord of the Rings? These are examples of exceptional adaptations, but what happens when a director goes to far?

Well, as I previously mentioned, we have the first two Jurassic parks, both based off best-selling books, and both huge successes in the box office. Well, after Steven Spielburg laid another claim to fame, some moron got the stupid idea to make the Jurassic Park franchise into a trilogy. This is where really good can go as bad as you can possible go without actually not making any money whatsoever. This time around, we’ll have a different director, and we won’t be basing the movie off of a best selling novel. No, this time, the third addition to the Jurassic Park story, was scripted form scratch, spawned solely to suck more money form the generally stupid masses of the world, by playing off of their already huge success. And as usual, when this is the motivation, the drive for a movie, it usually turns out to be horribly, horribly bad.

Well as it would be, Jurassic Park 3, was going to be commercialized to hell, which should have been the first sign to me, because normally I am good at fingering the bad movies before I’ve even seen them. However, my overly dumbfounded love for Jurassic Park blinded me form the obviousness of the truth. My first clue should have been the reason to fly these characters back to an island we already know is the place where nightmares happen on a regular basis. Well, the script writers, simply threw something together in about five minutes and came up with a hardly convincing plot based on a kid, who, while in the company of his step father, and his moronic friends, went parasailing off the coast of Isla Sorna. Well, as you might have guessed, something inevitably bad happens, and the kid is stranded alone on the island alone. Now his mom and father trick Dr Grant to go back to the island, to be their “guide”, but don’t let him know half of the truth. Now they make the case later in the movie that Grant was never on Isla Sorna, he was on Isla Nublar, and they acted like it was a casual mistake, wheras according to the story, isla Nublar was wiped out, and as a result of bad script writing, the story was farfetched on this idea, and hardly any fun to watch.

Here’s where it gets even better. Just when you think the movie is saved, when you see the T-Rex’s head rise above the dead carcass, and chase the characters down, it end up fighting the gigantic Spinosaurus, a huge alligator, lizard looking thing, with a long snout, and a giant fin. Yeah, a fin. Well, the two of them duke it out for superiority, and the Spinosaurus of course wins. It’s not that it wins, that really gets to me. It’s the fact that it BROKE THE T-REX’S NECK. It was like, “Oh yeah, I’ve got you just where I want you!” Snap! But in any case, there were so many things wrong with this movie, I’d have to write a term paper on it to cover every painful detail. Any other insights on other movies? Anyone want to defend THIS one?

-Pen

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Uh...no.

Posted by Ergoface (Member # 1429) on :

Jurassic Park 2 was good? I liked 1, thought it was a good movie, decent book, but 2. I didn't see 3 because 2 was so bad. Oh well.

Posted by srhowen (Member # 462) on :

Hmm, no. I didn't care for any of the Jerassic Park movies.

On the same note---but done well. Did anyone watch Skinwalkers yesterday? It was a PBS movie made from Tony Hillerman's Novel of the same name.

They did a very good job and captured the flavor of the book. Most likely because Hillerman himself had a lot to do with it and he commented that the first thing an author needs to do is realize you can't film a book. He said you can capture elements of the book, but that what you are really after is the same feeling.

They did a good job and I hope they make more of his books into shows.

Shawn

Posted by Doc Brown (Member # 1118) on :

I would not even consider defending Jurassic Park 3, but the fact that JP1 made a good movie is pretty amazing. JP is essentially science fiction, and good science fiction books rarely get made into good movies. I'm not sure why.

The best science fiction book-to-movie adaptation I can think of is Blade Runner. IMO the worst is Dune, and that might only be because I haven't seen Starship Troopers. I think Contact and Bicentennial Man are both underrated, but both could have been done better.

Outside Science Fiction, great books make great movies all the time. Examples include The Godfather, Gone with the Wind, and my favorite The Right Stuff. Apocalypse Now almost counts, although the book Heart of Darkness was significantly different.

Posted by Cosmi (Member # 1252) on :

imo, the difference between JP and JP3 is that they aim at different goals. JP wants to scare you, sure, but it's also out to make you think a little. JP3, on the other hand, basically wants to give a theatre full of thrill-seekers the chance to pee their pants. i think both movies were _successful_ in what they set out to accomplish. i saw JP3 in the theatre, i was on the edge of my seat the whole time. whether or not anyone thinks they are _good_ movies depends upon whether or not they like a plotless* scare or require a little more substance.

*and inaccurate. weren't those pterodactyls (sp?) walking on two legs...?

TTFN & lol

Cosmi

PS: can't really comment on JP2, i read the book (liked it), but i haven't seen the whole movie.

Posted by Pen (Member # 1526) on :

Well, all of these are good points. What a nice turn out. =) But, another thing I thought I should mention is that, the portrayal of the dinosaurs in the 3rd movie, made them out to be "Theme park monsters" As Grant had said in the movie. Well in the first two movies you saw a story that was heavily based on realistic animal behavior, portrayed by the dinosaurs, such as "Predators don't hunt when they're not hungry." The first two were intelligent scare type movies. The third was meant to scare you, but it doesn't fit well with the other two...

Posted by cvgurau (Member # 1345) on :

I saw the first movie YEARS ago, so i can't really remember the exact content, and whether or not it sucked all it's own, and I've never read the book, so I had no basis of comparison to begin with. (Come to think of it, I saw it on basic cable a few weeks ago, but does that really count?)

The second one, however, I saw after I read the book, and I have to say I was severely disappointed. They did no less that ruin the book by making such a bad movie. For one thing, they completely eliminated the Andy character, a charming little negro genius (does that sound condensending? Because I really don't mean it to) who, along with his friend (who's name I forget) are assistants to...Leinier(?). Instead, they made the girl, Andy's friend, the adopted daughter and amalgam of both the children, it seems, of Ian Malcolm. A bad move, in my opinion.

There are other things, but I'm writing this post and simultaneously chatting with a friend, so it slipped my mind. Oops.

Either way, I thought that JP3 was pretty decent, even if it was little more than eye-candy (Just another sheep in the flock, man. Just another sheep in the flock) and I wouldn't mind seeing the first one again. If only to remind myself why I did or did not like it. I'm reading the novel, though (haven't started yet, but I have it from the library) and I'm not looking forward to discovering the major differences between it and the movie.

Constantly distracted, forgetful, and absent-minded,

Chris.

ps. aren't forgetful and absent-minded the same thing?

[This message has been edited by cvgurau (edited November 27, 2002).]