h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have just heard that Steven Speilberg is considering directing a film of the first Harry Potter book 'The Philosopher's Stone'. He said his intention would be to 'keep it scary'. Oh good...

Ah but will Mr Speilberg make as good an attempt at it as Danny DeVito did with Matilda. If I remember the interviews at the time he decided to do the movie for his children and had them as his preview audience

That's true. Matilda was excellent. Good point. I wonder if Mr DeVito is also showing an interest....?

Probably a loser, but are there any books made into film where the films are better than the books. I know it's a long shot but are there any?

In my opinion (feel free to shoot me) the original novel M*A*S*H is the least succesful medium that M*A*S*H was adapted for. The writer had a wonderful concept and great characters, but he was a doctor, not a professional author, so much of the prose is choppy, and in parts unsuccesful. The movie, in my view, was better. The television series was even better, and that's also a rare ocurrance (TV better than film) although I suppose I'd put Highlander in the same category (at the risk of being shot).

The real reason I entered this forum, though, was to mention that Catch-22 should be in this library somewhere (there was a film). I think that Saphire, Flymba, The Lizard and Uncle Sam would agree with me here (they've all discussed they're love for the book in a forum connected to my homepage).

'The Howling' - The book was a hack horror novel, the film was a wonderful, sly movie which kept little from the book but the title.

I'm sure lots of people would argue that 'The Shining' is a better movie than the book.

'Jaws' was immeasurably better than the book.

I'd also argue that 'Die Hard' was better than the book it was based on.

'Lawrence of Arabia' is a classic movie. Does anyone still read 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom' any more?

Bernadette says '101 Dalmations' and 'Mary Poppins' were better than the books.

'The Lost World' was far superior on film, and 'Jurassic Park' had more realistic dinosaurs.

I'm sure there are more.

Although Jurassic Park is debateable (how can you define realistic dinosaurs in a book -- isn't it your imagination that's at fault?) I'm going to have to argue that the Lost World was not as good as the book -- which wasn't that great anyway... the book was a sequal more to the movie Jurassic Park than the original book, the author was trying to write a hollywood freindly book, but they still messed around with his story... I can't believe that there was a book of Die Hard!

> I can't believe that there was a book of Die Hard!

It's true - it was by Roderick Thorp. It isn't actually bad, just that the film is far superior.

The weirdest thing is Die Hard 2. That too is based on a book, but a completely unrelated book (called '57 Minutes') which was in script development at the time they were thinking about Die Hard 2. They looked at it and realised by putting the John McClane character into it they could turn it into a Die Hard movie.

Actually, given that I'm quite amazed that "Speed" wasn't a Die Hard movie. Think about the first two, John McClane trapped in a sky scrapper, john McClane trapped in an airport, wouldn't John McClane trapped on a bus make just as much sense?

Well, the short-hand for an awful lot of action movies has been 'Die Hard in a...'

Speed: Die Hard in a bus
Under Siege: Die Hard on a ship
Executive Decision: Die Hard on an Airliner

All you need is the lone hero in an enclosed situation up against incredible odds and you've got the formula.

truely one of the great subgenres in action movies. Maybe not so good as the revenge flick... (which requires someone to kill Mel Gibson's wife, ie: Mad Max, Leathal Weapon 2, Braveheart...)

"Blade Runner" was based on the book "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick. I am not sure which is better as they are complementary: read the book and you understand the film more and vice versa.

This is probably not posted in quite the right place: forgive a novice.

where else would you post it?

Just read that the Lord Of The Rings films are about to start shooting in New Zeland. Hope that a good job is made of it.

Phil

I at least hope that a better job of it is made than the various cartoon versions of JRR Tolkien's works. Stick to the text, people! Are there going to be any big stars in the film? Not that it needs it or anything, just thought that perhaps Sean Connery as Gandalf, or maybe Saroman the Many Colored would work.

I certainly hope that they stick to the books.
As for casting it includes Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf,
Elijah Wood as Frodo, Sean Bean as Bromir, Ian Holm as Bilbo,
Cate Blanchett as Gladriel and Cristopher Lee as Saruman the
White.

Check out http://www.lordoftheringsmovie.com which is where I
got the list from

Elijah Wood! Blasphemy!

Ok then, if you don't agree with certain parts of the casting, who would you suggest?

I honestly don't know. Some unkown I guess. I was hoping that they wouldn't use people with dwarfism (like in Willow) but I didn't really think of anyone I knew that could play the role. Any word on Strider?

Okay, I just checked out the website, and saw the photo of Frodo and I guess he'll work better than I thought.