William S. Burroughs' grandfather founded the Burroughs Adding Machine Company. In a way, I've had two rounds of employment with them. When I was fresh out of the USAF, 1978-9, I worked for Memorex in Santa Clara, a couple years after I left, Burroughs bought the Memorex computer products division (and Tandy, for whom I was working by then, bought the consumer products division). Then in 1990-1 I worked for Unisys at the old Convergent Technologies campus in San Jose.

To partially resume the thread, the movie adaptation of The Naked Lunch was some kinda strange. Of course it didn't follow the plot of the book, because nobody has ever been able to find a plot in the book.

Yeah, the movie was, uh, different. Kind of like Eraserhead, worth seeing once but probably not twice. Which probably applies to a lot of Cronenberg (I liked his "The Dead Zone", though - that would probably be a category #2 for me)

Phillip Jose Farmer once wrote a short story ("The Jungle Rot Kid On the Nod") that was a Tarzan story as if written by William S. Burroughs instead of Edgar Rice Burroughs that was pretty funny.

I enjoy watching Barbarian as a swords and sorcery adventure movie but I refuse to aknowledge that the Conan referred to in the movie is the Conan from the novels and short stories, since it is clear from the storyline that it is not.

Milius is likely the least culpable but he is still a accessory to the crime.

Red Sonja wasn't great but it was as good as The Sword and the Sorcerer and better than Beastmaster or the host of other pretenders that followed.

Hopefully Robert Rodriguez's version of Sonja (with Rose McGowan) is better. Doug Aarniokoski (first assistant director on Rodriguez projects like Dusk 'til Dawn, Spy Kids, et. al.) is directing...but he is also responsible for directing Highlander: Endgame (ouch).

I'm not holding my breath.

-Wapitikev

I didn't know they were remaking Red Sonja! I have to admit "The Sword and the Sorceror" and "Beastmaster" are guilty pleasures. Not a lot of great sword and sorcery films I can think of - "Circle of Iron" is kind of one. (Not great, but interesting). "The 13th Warrior" isn't really S&S, but has a little of the feel I associate with Howard. As does "300".

Most pulp heroes have not been well-served by the movies. I hated "The Shadow" (but then, I can't stand Alec Baldwin), and I feel about "Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze" the way you feel about Conan, although probably moreso. What was George Pal thinking? "The Phantom" is more of a comic strip than pulp hero, but I thought that film wasn't bad.

William S. Burroughs' grandfather founded the Burroughs Adding Machine Company. In a way, I've had two rounds of employment with them. When I was fresh out of the USAF, 1978-9, I worked for Memorex in Santa Clara, a couple years after I left, Burroughs bought the Memorex computer products division (and Tandy, for whom I was working by then, bought the consumer products division). Then in 1990-1 I worked for Unisys at the old Convergent Technologies campus in San Jose.

To partially resume the thread, the movie adaptation of The Naked Lunch was some kinda strange. Of course it didn't follow the plot of the book, because nobody has ever been able to find a plot in the book.

About The Naked Lunch, I really HATED that book. I dumped the book. But the movie was okay. Visual effect was weird but I liked it.

(Original post deleted.)

EDITED: Re-reading his orginal post, I think I misinterpreted what KRW wrote - sorry, KRW! That was stupid of me.

Yeah, I meant rereading the book would be a good thing. But don't get me wrong, I frown upon Leo's and such.

Yeah, I meant rereading the book would be a good thing. But don't get me wrong, I frown upon Leo's and such.

I didn't take offense, just trying to kid along.

Red Sonja wasn't great but it was as good as The Sword and the Sorcerer and better than Beastmaster or the host of other pretenders that followed.

-Wapitikev

My biggest complaint about Beastmaster is that they took a perfectly good SF novel and turned it into crap. If the movie had a different name, I might not be so annoyed. It annoyed Andre Norton so much that she has refused to allow any more of her work to be filmed. And I know a guy with an excellent script for The Time Traders.

My biggest complaint about Beastmaster is that they took a perfectly good SF novel and turned it into crap. If the movie had a different name, I might not be so annoyed. It annoyed Andre Norton so much that she has refused to allow any more of her work to be filmed. And I know a guy with an excellent script for The Time Traders.

Sometimes they do such a bad adaptation that the stench prevents a good SF novel from being remade for a long time, if ever. Case in point: Roger Zelazny's "Damnation Alley" - great book, very exciting yet thematically deep about the last Hell's Angel. Absolutely craptastic film with Jan Michael-Vincent and George Peppard. Ditto with David Brin's "The Post Man"

Sometimes they do such a bad adaptation that the stench prevents a good SF novel from being remade for a long time, if ever. Case in point: Roger Zelazny's "Damnation Alley" - great book, very exciting yet thematically deep about the last Hell's Angel. Absolutely craptastic film with Jan Michael-Vincent and George Peppard. Ditto with David Brin's "The Post Man"

In the case of Damnation Alley, what should have been filmed was the original novella, which was much more tightly written than the novel it was expanded into.

Lots of Zelazny's work should be filmed. He was one of the most visual writers I ever encountered. And he left a larger body of short work than most.

Way back in the 70s while stationed at Travis AFB, I saw a stage adaptation of Lord of Light at a dinner theatre in the North Beach district of San Francisco. Well done without special effects.

Yeah, the movie was, uh, different. Kind of like Eraserhead, worth seeing once but probably not twice. Which probably applies to a lot of Cronenberg (I liked his "The Dead Zone", though - that would probably be a category #2 for me)

Phillip Jose Farmer once wrote a short story ("The Jungle Rot Kid On the Nod") that was a Tarzan story as if written by William S. Burroughs instead of Edgar Rice Burroughs that was pretty funny.

Speaking of Cronenberg, you made me think of another contender for Category 3:

A History Of Violence

David Cronenberg's film is roughly 168% better than the comic book source material. He takes ther same set up - that there's more than meets the eye about a small town coffee shop owner, and we only start to uncover the mystery surrounding him after a stick up ends in an unusually violent way.

Everything after that is different and better.

It's almost as if, when they were reading the original comic, they were thinking to themselves "Lets leave in everything good, and improve everything that's a little bit stoooopid" and, surprise surprise, by doing so they are left with a superior story.

Fancy that!

Okay, here's how it's played:

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).

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.

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

You can't name a film that has already been named. Discussion is encouraged.

I'll start off:

1) The Keep (naturally).
2) A Clockwork Orange
3) The Parallax View - boring mish-mash of a novel, pretty interesting paranoid conspiracy film.

Pick up your #2 pencils and begin.

1) GONE WITH THE WIND--the book, a world classic. The movie, something less. But everyone involved with the flick did a fine job... the book was just unfilmable.