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

Books

1 readers
1 users here now

founded 10 months 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
[–] icecreamkoan@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago (39 children)

Jurassic Park is my go-to answer whenever this question comes up.

  1. Michael Crichton is... let's say, not great... at writing female characters. (At least women and girls. He did OK with the dinosaurs.)
  2. In the book, Lex is the younger sibling. Timmy is the dinosaur fan and the computer expert, borderline Marty Stu. The computer stuff Lex does in the movie? That's all Tim in the book. Lex is just a whiny brat. By the time I was 1/3 of the way through the book I was rooting for the dinosaurs to eat Lex.
[–] ericbanana@alien.top 1 points 9 months ago

not great... at writing female characters.

Crichton is bad at writing people in general, it's just particularly noticeable with the woman in his books, because he seems to hold contempt for them. Saddler is one of the few presented as competent, and the book goes to great lengths to let us know what nice legs she has. Ian Malcom, the author insert character, comments on them to her face and we are left with no indication of how she felt about it, and it's presented as a completely normal thing to say.

Other characters are just 101 level textbooks with hints of a personality, which Crichton just takes from professionals that he personally likes or dislikes.

What he does exceed at in Jurassic Park, is demonstrating all the little decisions made by management, as you see them continuously compound into larger and larger problems. In the film, it's almost like the storm is solely responsible for Jurassic Parks failure.

Additionally, despite the terrific performance by Samuel L. Jackson, Tom/John Arnold from the book is really the stand out character of the novel. An intelligent, competent engineer, who's confident in the park, but comes to realize that Malcom is right over the course of the book (making him the only character with an arch). He realizes his hubris, yet still ultimately pays the price for it. He and Wu were both brilliant, but unable to see outside of their own personal responsibilities to notice the broader picture.

load more comments (38 replies)