this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)

Books

1 readers
1 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I LOVE Alfonso Cuarón’s sci-fi action movie Children of Men. I’ve watched maybe six times and every time, the ending always almost brings me to tears. So when I learned it was adapted from P.D. James’ book of the same name, it was a no-brainer deciding what my next book would be.

After finishing the book, it wasn’t difficult to reach to the conclusion that I enjoyed the movie better.

While James’ book gives a more in-depth look at how human infertility and humanity’s slow death march towards extinction affects the sexual dynamic between men and women and almost demented ways humans try to cope with a world without children or a race of dead men walking, I feel the book dedicates WAY too much time describing the failing of human civilization and the Regrets and guilt of Theo Faron. It’s not even until after 2/3 through the book where it feels like the plot and story are properly paced and stuff of consequence actually begin to happen.

The film’s adaptation by, comparison, feels consistent in its pacing and the world building and woe-is-mes of Theo feel more compact a take up less of the audience’s time.

What books do you feel were worse than its film adaptation and why?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DrPlatypus1@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Harry Potter. Rowling needed an editor badly, especially in the middle books, and the house elf stuff with Hermione was awful, cringy, and kind of racist.

[–] jaegan438@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

You can really see the point in the series when either success made her stop listening to her Editor, or the Editor stopped trying because of the success, I've never been sure which. The first couple of books are pretty tight, and it's obvious from the later books that that was NOT how Rowling wrote at all.