Category 3: First Blood...sure the story was changed a little (Rambo doesn't kill any of the police, directly, in the movie, making him a more sympathetic character) and he lives at the end (instead of Trautman killing him) but the overall theme of "the alienated veitnam vetran" came through loud and clear. The movie was simply a more interesting experience than the novel.

-Wapitikev

It's been a while since I've read the book or watched the movie, but I thought they movie closely followed the book. I really can't remember him killing any cops in the book except for the one that fell from the chopper. (That one was indirectly and in the movie) The ending was the only change I remember between the two.

As far as my ranking, that movie was as good as the book.

The movie "Shawshank Redemption" followed the book very closely also, but I give the movie a higher standard because of the actors. They did a magnificent job. This one and "Catlow". I really loved "Catlow".

And for the book that out shined the movie, I'll agree with Kenji. I was so hyped to find out that they had made "Watchers" into a movie, I told everyone I knew to watch it. I have never had to apologize so much in my life.

It's been a while since I've read the book or watched the movie, but I thought they movie closely followed the book. I really can't remember him killing any cops in the book except for the one that fell from the chopper. (That one was indirectly and in the movie) The ending was the only change I remember between the two.

Actually Rambo killed most of the cops he faced in the book, no mercy whatsoever. Other than that they were pretty similar.

Actually Rambo killed most of the cops he faced in the book, no mercy whatsoever. Other than that they were pretty similar.

Hmm, I'm gonna have to reread that.. not like that's a bad thing.

Oh, did I mention that Conan is getting a re-make?

The guy who butchered X-3 is doing it. So, in 20 years, we'll have had two horrible non-Conan movies called Conan.

May Ratner burn in hell.

-Wapitikev

Actually Rambo killed most of the cops he faced in the book, no mercy whatsoever. Other than that they were pretty similar.

Rambo showed no mercy, he cut through the police as if they weren't even a threat.

Hmm, I'm gonna have to reread that.. not like that's a bad thing.

Ahem, some of us are nice guys. We even cut the occasional break to all sorts. :p

1. Remo Williams:the Adventure Begins - It's an ok enough movie but leaves out much of the satire of the original novels.

2. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead- The play is great. The film is great, Tom Stoppard was able to direct what he wrote, added material for the film since he knew what works on stage and film aren't always the same- I love the physics jokes in the movie.

3. Die Hard- One of the rare times that the movie is better then the book, while Nothing Lasts Forever isn't a bad book it is not a "classic" deserving of repeat readings.

Strongly agree with the first two - I was a big fan of the Remo and Chiun novels, and I love Stoppard's play and the movie. I didn't know Die Hard was an adaptation!

With one major exception. There is a stage musical adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 that La Esposa and I saw over in the Village a dozen years back that was immensely better than the movie made by that frog. (Yeah, a stage "Musical" about burning books. Bradbury had been there the previous evening and approved (we were there for the Saturday matinee, since I had a day job).

Unfortunately, my extensive review of the play is not currently on-line (since back issues of the newsletter it was published in haven't been put up yet, and that hard disk isn't attached to one of my active machines)

I was thinking of film adaptations, but Bradbury's lyrical style may work better on stage than film. I read his collection of theatrical adaptations years ago and never saw any staged but thought they would work well - I wish I could have seen Fahrenheit 451 on stage.

I did see a short semi-animated film of Bradbury's "Icarus Montgolfier Wright" that was good, based on paintings by Bradbury's longtime illustrator Joe Mugaini, but it was essentially a reading of the story.

I actually own a hardcover copy of the This Island Earth (library discard), which I never got around to reading. Somewhere in this attic. Haven't viewed the movie this millennium either. Or even fired up my interocitor. (The neighbors complain when the street lights dim -- the reason I never plug in my TRS-80 Model 2 and my Tandy 6000HD at the same time).

(I have the same problem when I power up my Commodore VIC-20, by the way.)

Several years ago, Sorrel and I went to a spectacular screening of the last working 3-D print of 'It Came From Outer Space' with a live score performed by Pere Ubu. That was brillaint

Wow! I would have loved to see that - I'm a huge Pere Ubu fan. I saw a 3D print at the Valley Art Theater in Tempe back in the late 1970s - that mixed blue and red effect gave the desert a really otherworldly feeling, and it was a surprisingly thoughtful SF for the time. I thought it was based on an original script by Bradbury, though.

1) Name 1 film adaptation which is worse than the source material (novel, play, graphic novel, video game, tv series - remakes of other movies don't count).

Watchers
*Awful and pointless movie....

2) Name 1 film adaptation that is as good as the source material - i.e., both the source and film are great in their own right.

The Kite Runner
*The novel was masterpiece. The Movie had a lot of memorable moments. Both were good.

3) Name 1 film adaptation that is actually superior to the source material.

Blade Runner
*I disliked P.K. Dick's original novel. But the movie is great. My favorite SF movie all time.

Good calls on all 3, Kenji. I'm not a big Koontz fan, but loved his book "The Watchers" - but what a terrible adaptation. "The Kite Runner" was excellent. I like the original Dick novel, but it's very different in plot and effect and the movie is definitely in my all time Top 5 (at least).

Category 1 has too many choices but Tarzan has never been given the proper big screen treatment and despite it's legion of fans, I disliked Conan The Barbarian as well.

Yeah, the ultimate Tarzan movie has never been made. He's always treated as jungle naif or borderline mentally
challenged, never with the power and majesty you see in the books (or the excellent Kubert comics adaptation).

Also agree on the Bournes - The Ludlum novel "The Osterman Weekend" was kind of slight, but I liked the Peckinpah adaptation.

I am the only American who has never seen "Jaws", so I'll have to withhold comment on #3.