Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!decvax!cca!ISM780!dianeh
From: dianeh@ISM780.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Re: SF movies [was Re: Emeny Mine]
Message-ID: <32900018@ISM780.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 00:51:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780.32900018
Posted: Tue Dec 31 00:51:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 2-Jan-86 10:11:25 EST
References: <467@oliven.UUCP>
Lines: 48
Nf-ID: #R:oliven:-46700:ISM780:32900018:000:2520
Nf-From: ISM780!dianeh    Dec 31 00:51:00 1985


/* Written 10:06 pm  Dec 26, 1985 by boyajian@decwrl in ISM780:net.sf-lovers */
>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)
/* End of text from ISM780:net.sf-lovers */

I read what you had to say; I understood the issue at hand. Comparison to
the original was *not* irrelevant. If a film (or book) is *based* on a book
(or film), then a comparison to the original form is inevitable -- otherwise,
all you have is two separate entities sharing a common title, but little
else. In that case, you can't say that a good book has been *made into*
a good film; all you can say is, "That's a good film. There's also a good
book with the same title."  The issue at hand was good books that had (or,
in the original poster's opinion, hadn't) been made into good films.
PLANET OF THE APES was a schlock film because it deviated so
drastically (and tragically) from the original, with absolutely no good
excuse for doing so. It turned a perfectly good story into Hollywood-pulp.
They did a convincing job on the makeup, and that's about it.

As to CHARLY, it's just a matter of opinion, since they didn't deviate
enough from the original to have that as a basis for criticism (but I still
think that whole bit with the motorcycle gang was crap), but *I* happen to
think that the book was better -- so there, nyah.

Now I'll offer an example of a film that I think was better (although there
are probably people who would say just as good and probably some that would
say not as good) than the book: BEING THERE. Jerzy Kozinki's book bored me
to tears, but the movie was really touching: simple, elegant, and beautifully
done. You see, I'm not a "never has a film lived up to the book" fanatic. I
simply disagreed with two of your examples.

Diane Holt
Interactive Systems Corp.
ima!ism780!dianeh

"Personal opinion -- love it or hate it, but you can't ignore it."
						--Me