"TANSTAAFL: There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" ...
TANSTAAFL
• Jul. 12, 2007 - Booking Through Thursday
1. In your opinion, what is the best translation of a book to a movie?
2. The worst?
3. Had you read the book before seeing the movie, and did that make a difference? (Personally, all other things being equal, I usually prefer whichever I was introduced to first.)
I have to say that 39 Steps by Alfred Hitchcock, The Last Sin Eater and Where Eagles Dare would be at the top. Now I would have painted the Last Sin Eater somewhat darker but all in all pretty faithful to the book. I would say that Where Eagles Dare with Clint Eastwood was the closest rendition.
I'm sure there are a lot here (if I had time I might think of a better example) but I have to go with Lord of the Rings. Not that it was a bad trilogy at all, quite the contrary it was excellent BUT the thoughts (which are always hard to get in a movie) of the characters, the songs and riddles, and the last part about the Shire are sadly lacking. Don't get me wrong I loved the movies but, like my daughter, who had just read the books, they were a ways off. I guess it was an impossible task though. I just think that the riddles, poems and thoughts of the book really make the book. The closest the movie came to the real Hobbit feel was at the start in Bilbo's home IMHO. Again, I loved the movies but it is impossible to be true to these books.
I usually (at least, in the past) read the book first. I normally prefer the book. The movies take away from the images we have set up in our minds AND the movies can not duplicate the thoughts.
TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!)
State of Fear is a book by Michael Crichton (author of Jurassic Park) that I have just finished. I was never super interested in Crichton's books. I read some if not all of Andromeda Strain and like most saw Jurassic Park but it unfortunately, like in State of Fear, showed confusion with age of the earth and evilution. I never have liked ER and actually do not enjoy most modern writers that others seem to flock to or do only in a casual manner such as the guy who writes the note in a bottle books, or Grisham, etc. I had a friend who read Congo and Drums along the Congo at the same time. He said that the non-Crichton Drums was much better so, I've sort of avoided Crichton as a whole. However, I had been wanting to read it because (unlike most of Crichton's books) this book seemed to get little acclaim. This, made me curious. Usually, or often, I've found when the press does not acclaim something by a famous author it actually might be good. This was the case with State of Fear. A basic premise of the book which I think is very true is that governments in general in order to try and control the general populace (or as John D. Rockefeller and the elites called them, the maggots), it was necessary to keep the general public in a state of fear. He shows how this has been done in the name of Climate Change. Interestingly to me this book is very, very up to date even though it's about 4 years old. In order to try and control the population the latest fear needs to be shown to be a "crisis" or "catastrophe". In order to get people's attention the crisis has to be immediate and huge and relatively unknown and uncontrollable.
I really enjoyed this book because Crichton has a way of disturbing the status quo that often is wrong because Science has been and is being politicized.
I really enjoyed this in the book:
While a novel, Crichton does an excellent, excellent job of footnoting and obviously did much serious reading and research as witnessed by the extensive Bibliography
The pace is fast and somewhat believable
The appendix on Eugenics is wonderful and accurate and a forgotten part of history
Graphs and scientific support are within the text
Things I did not like:
It, like many modern day novels, reads like a movie script (after all Crichton did write the crummy TV series ER).
The book is filled with conversation which really takes up a lot of space.
However, I would say that this is a very good read. It points out the dangers of politicization of Science and how what might be commonly believed by nearly all and acclaimed to be consensus amongst the "majority" of scientists might very well be wrong and actually manipulated by the press and government and powerful people with evil intent. I believe this is essentially true in the area of climate change. Crichton also addresses false bugaboos besides global warming such as DDT is dangerous, there were never any cannibals, primitive man and living is best, Western societies are bad for the earth, and so on.
There is a fairly good synopsis of the book at Wikipedia and a shallow and insipid rebuttal at the Pew Institute (one of the types of institutes similar to those negatively addressed in the book). Crichton's summation of Eugenics in the Appendix is just excellent. I am amazed that someone as bright as Crichton still believes in the myth of evolution after viewing the evil fruits of that myth with Eugenics and Galton.
I highly recommend this book. It will hopefully make everyone think a little more before accepting common "scientific" facts. Some possible myths that I see in Science right now beyond the myth of global warming and evilution are:
We are in danger of running out of oil
Ethanol can actually be a solution to our energy problems
