Sum Of All Fears travesty.

[JB]

I read very little fiction. Tom Clancy is the exception.

I just watched a film called "The Sum Of All Fears", supposed to be based on Clancy's book.

Why do those Hollywood hacks always think they can improve on master novelists? Very little resemblance to Clancy, and nothing like the technical wizardry or suspense of Clancy.

ROWRBAZZLE!!:|

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I don't think they care much about improving the works of writers, as they do about making a buck.

 

[DJ]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

JB,

I agree. "Hollywood hack" is putting it nicely.

I do read the fiction novels. It is surprising how close to reality they are. Some say they are "far fetched". I disagree. It is no giant leap to think that stuff really happens.

The novels really make one-think. Which I like to do.

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I think most books are better because we can use our imagination, whereas in a movie it is not our interputation, but that of someone else.

 

[jinx]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

Part of the problem is the time element--notwithstanding that most are, indeed, Hollywood Hacks.

When "Shogun was filmed it had 6 or 10 hours in a miniseries format, and the author, James Clavell, involved.

You rarely can do even the shortest novel justice in 100 minutes.

By the way, Clavell is one of my favorites. In addition to Shogun, he wrote Tai-Pan and King Rat. He was in a Japanese POW camp so he knew of what he wrote.

He also did the screenplay for The Great Escape.

Jinx

 

[DJ]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I agree with Plainsman. Books let you "live it" in your minds eye. You become part of a really good book. I like that.

 

[heycods]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

They aint making louie llamour movies any more, Is it cause Tom Sellik got old?

 

[OBJ]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I thought the "Hunt For Red October" followed the book very well. Clancy has a way of grabbing you in the first few pages.....and not letting you go.

 

[crunch]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I agree with Plainsman. Books let you "live it" in your minds eye. You become part of a really good book. I like that.

Yes, the minds eye.... what you see on the "screen" only engages the eye, what you see by reading engages all of your senses... in effect, you are there.

 

[QC]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

Well I have read all of Clancy's novels and simply will not watch a Clancy movie, they really don't work. Maybe Hunt for Red October, but his books are way too complex to be captured in 2 hours. My .02 . . . Keep reading, it's more fun anyway.

My favorite is probably Rainbow Six and I wish we would form one . . .

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

They aint making louie llamour movies any more, Is it cause Tom Sellik got old?

Ah the Sacketts.. I had all of his books...great reading..made you feel as if you were in the old west.

 

[DJ]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

Crunch,

what you see by reading engages all of your senses... in effect, you are there.

Agreed!

 

[Pony]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

Idk, I thought "The Outsiders" was done as a movie fairly well.

Also stuff like the "Lord of the Rings" series and "Jurrasic Park" etc migrated well to the big screen.

That being said however, reading the book is almost always better for the reasons you all have mentioned.

 

[PW2]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

Movies are a different medium than books.

Any movie is doomed if it attempts to recreate a novel in cinematic form. It may take it's rough plot lines and characters from a novel, but if it is to be judged, it should be judged on its own merits.

It's easy for a novelist to stage elaborate sets, for example. All he has to do is describe them, and if he's good at it, the reader's imagination takes over. It's not so easy to build the same movie set.

Rarely are movies as good as the originating book. Ocasionally they are better. They are never the same.

 

[Tyme2fish]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I think most books are better because we can use our imagination, whereas in a movie it is not our interputation, but that of someone else.

You hit that one on the head. My thoughts exactly. I've never seen a movie that matched up to the book.

 

[gonefishie]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I agreed with PW2! I've seen The Sum of All Fears and thought it was rather good. It could have been better if it was someone else instead of Ben Afleck. I guess I have no imagination because I would rather watch a movie then read a book any day. Back when I had to read books for school, I would get a Cliff's note instead. I once rented 20,000 leagues under the sea, watched it, and did a "book" report on it. 8)

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

... I would rather watch a movie then read a book any day....

Really?

 

[stevieray]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

I agree with Plainsman. Books let you "live it" in your minds eye. You become part of a really good book. I like that.

Yes, the minds eye.... what you see on the "screen" only engages the eye, what you see by reading engages all of your senses... in effect, you are there.

Unless you've got a really good sound system

Wonder when they're going to come out with "smell-a-vision"?

 

[heycods]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

Well I guess that proves Plainsman and myself are the only ones with good taste in movies!:=

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Sum Of All Fears travesty.

Well I guess that proves Plainsman and myself are the only ones with good taste in movies!:=

You both like Dr Seuss movies?