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?
Jurassic Park is my go-to answer whenever this question comes up.
My first thought as well. I think the smaller scale of the movie also really helps contain it, like having only 3 raptors makes them more consequential than the 11 or so they dispatch in like one chapter. Although I miss the Baby T-rex in the movie. Overall, Crichton is really good at the science aspect and the theme of chaos theory, but the movie treats every character better. Like Grant is way more interesting in the movie imo
Baby t-rex is in the second book & movie.
Are you sure? Maybe I'm mistaken but I read the first one recently and there were two t-rexes, one adult and one juvenile. Oooh, wait, is there an actual baby t-rex in the second and not like a kid one? I only saw the first and third movie so I don't know