Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site decwrl.DEC.COM
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian
From: boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: re: SF movies
Message-ID: <176@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Date: Thu, 26-Dec-85 22:06:52 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.176
Posted: Thu Dec 26 22:06:52 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 20:20:17 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.DEC.COM
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 31


> From:	ISM780!dianeh	(Diane Holt)

[Responding to a posting of mine.]

> CHARLY *better* than Flowers_for_Algernon??? Yuk!  The film wasn't bad, if
> you *don't* compare it to the book -- but once you do...
>
> PLANET OF THE APES was an abomination compared to the book. It's a typical
> Hollywood product -- "Hey, this sounds great...apes running the world and
> having humans as slaves...yeah, and we can tie in a Third World War at the
> same time...Great!" The book was subtle and intriguing and had *nothing* to
> do with our blowing ourselves up. Read it sometime.

Where in my posting did I claim that either of these films was
*better* than the book it's derived from?? The original comment
that I was responding to claimed that no good movie was ever
made from a good book. I listed examples that, in my opinion,
showed otherwise. PLANET OF THE APES was a good novel. PLANET
OF THE APES was a good movie. Whether either is better than the
other is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please read
what I have to say before flaming.
	As for CHARLY, I beg to differ. The film was not as good
as the *short story* "Flowers for Algernon", but I still think
it's better than the novel version.

--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, Acton-Nagog, MA)

UUCP:	{decvax|ihnp4|allegra|ucbvax|...}
	!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-akov68!boyajian
ARPA:	boyajian%akov68.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM