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?
i like how the book sets up the world but boy do i not like most of the characters in it.
Ian malcolm dies but his speech at the end is some of the most up your own arse, ego self insert anti science BS i have seen from a writer and feels like ian dies like jesus. Ian in the movie is funny, critic who plays the devil advocate on maybe dont play god, with some great lines. Ian in the book is anti-science self insert for Michael who gets so annoying by the end
John Hammond, there is no depth there, just big evil billionaire, which i enjoy a takedown but i dont get any interesting thing out of it. Hammond in the movie is so much warm and a joy too be around but also a great way too show hubris in playing god and how captalism gets in its own way.