This is a question that I have long pondered.
When film makers decide to make a film based on a science fiction story, they always seem to read the title and the general synopsis, then decide that they can tell the story better than the original author and throw most of the story away.
I have been an avid reader of science fiction literature for over 40 years now, and occasionally a book I have read has been made into a film. Almost without exception, the story portrayed on the screen has born almost no resemblance to the story I have read.
Some examples that spring to mind are:
"Blade Runner"
Although a classic film, the book is far better, in my opinion, explains the story far better, and is even darker than the film.
"Running Man"
This was written by Stephen King under a different name, and was a very disturbing tale about a man so desperate to save his family from starvation that he would take part in a fixed game show to earn money. Pushed beyond breaking point he eventually kills himself and the TV executives who ripped him off. However, the Arnie film bore no resemblance to the book at all.
"War of the Worlds"
In both the 1953 and 2005 versions most of the story is significantly re-written, most of the main characters are either lost or changed beyond recognition and neither are a patch on the book.
"Battlefield Earth"
Written by L. Ron Hubbard, the book was a reasonable read, in my opinion. The film, however, was one of the worst films I have ever seen.
"Dune"
Because the book is a lengthy tome and there wasn't time to tell the whole story, so much had to be left out or re-written that you almost had to have read the book for the film to have made sense.
I could go on, but you get the general idea, I think.
I know that Sci-fi is not the only genre to suffer from this kind of butchery, but it does seem to me that it is more likely to happen if the book is a sci-fi novel than if it were any other.
Anybody else feel the same? Or am I just becoming old and intolerant?
When film makers decide to make a film based on a science fiction story, they always seem to read the title and the general synopsis, then decide that they can tell the story better than the original author and throw most of the story away.
I have been an avid reader of science fiction literature for over 40 years now, and occasionally a book I have read has been made into a film. Almost without exception, the story portrayed on the screen has born almost no resemblance to the story I have read.
Some examples that spring to mind are:
"Blade Runner"
Although a classic film, the book is far better, in my opinion, explains the story far better, and is even darker than the film.
"Running Man"
This was written by Stephen King under a different name, and was a very disturbing tale about a man so desperate to save his family from starvation that he would take part in a fixed game show to earn money. Pushed beyond breaking point he eventually kills himself and the TV executives who ripped him off. However, the Arnie film bore no resemblance to the book at all.
"War of the Worlds"
In both the 1953 and 2005 versions most of the story is significantly re-written, most of the main characters are either lost or changed beyond recognition and neither are a patch on the book.
"Battlefield Earth"
Written by L. Ron Hubbard, the book was a reasonable read, in my opinion. The film, however, was one of the worst films I have ever seen.
"Dune"
Because the book is a lengthy tome and there wasn't time to tell the whole story, so much had to be left out or re-written that you almost had to have read the book for the film to have made sense.
I could go on, but you get the general idea, I think.
I know that Sci-fi is not the only genre to suffer from this kind of butchery, but it does seem to me that it is more likely to happen if the book is a sci-fi novel than if it were any other.
Anybody else feel the same? Or am I just becoming old and intolerant?
Comment