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

I usually hate the film if I have already read the book. If I see the film first I still usually prefer the book and then find it amusing to notice the bits spiced up when it was adapted for film.

I am really distressed about the forthcoming Harry Potter film because it is wonderful that kids are getting into reading again and learning to streach their imaginations. Now that they have a film to watch, Hagrid will always be Robbie Coltrane, etc. This can ruin the experience for the reader and make them lazy. If they bother with the books at all.

The most noticable instance of this for me was when I read silence of the lambs and Hannibal *was* Anthony Hopkins and Clarice *was* Jodie Foster. I am sure I would have been more unnerved by the book if I hadn't seen the film first.

I don't know. Hagrid was always robbie coltraine in my mind. Probably my mind though. Simialrly the Hitchikers guide TV series characters looked round about how I imagined tehm (Apaert from trillian)

Having seen the web trailers for Harry Potter (and LOTR) I felt that the casting for HP is magnificent Robbie fits well with my mental pic of Hagrid and Alan Rickman is a magnificent Snape. The only one that didn'y quite fit was Prof Magonigal but that's no criticism of the actress or casting. It's just that my mindset of the character was that of my Latin teacher of the early 1960s

Quite agree about mindset problem as I am more comfortable to see a film first otherwise the visual pics of characters irritate cos they're wrong (well different from what i had envisioned anyway)

What happens if there are two or three different films ofthe same book? There are three (at least) of the 39 steps. I much prefer the Kenneth Moore one tho the more recent one is technically probably better cos it uses more up to date tech stuf behind the camera. Basil Rathbone is the only Sherlock Holmes worth watching and Tom Baker the best Dr Who. So that's *my* prejudices aired then

ish

I suspect that the film of HP will encourage *more* folk to read rather than switch them off. After all when the BBC do a Dickens or Austen costume drama the book sales rocket don't they?

The only thing that worries me is that the author may get so caught up with the making of films that the reat of the series may not be all done. Me - I'm just greedy for more books! The films are a spinoff. The early Bond books tho were so out of date that when the films were made they were souped up a lot. This was the right thing to do in the circumstances I think.

As a terminal pedant I have to point out that I don't think any of the film versions of The 39 Steps is actually faithful to the plot of the novel. I like the Hitchcock version best because he was a great director, but he took John Buchan's idea as a starting point and ended up with a completely different story.

I'm always wary of films of books I like. One of the most disappointing is The House of the Spirits where the film manages to merge two of the central charaters into one. The Lord of the Rings I'm keeping my fingers crossed about.

I would mention Blade Runner as a possible case where the film is better than the book, which as I recall was a fairly slight novella. I have also always found Philip K Dick's writing hard to get on with, although he had some great ideas behind it. I'm sure there are many die-hard Philip K Dick fans who would disagree!

I reckon the HP film will encourage the parents who have to take their kids to see it to read, maybe, but not the kids. I remember all too well as a kid not bothering to read anything that I could watch instead. Case in point, Lord of the Rings, my first contact of which was the Ralph Bakshi film, which I turned off about 15 minutes in, cos it was boring. My dear old mum then made me read the book after I slighted the holy JRR, and it was fantastic. But had it not been for my psychotic mother (who is a primary school teacher, if that clears a few things up) then I would have carried on calling it a big old load of s**t. So any normal kid will just watch the film, and sod the book.
Films do sometimes inspire me to read the book, just so I can be one of those pretentious gits who says "Oh! But it's nothing like the book!" walking out of the cinema. Dune, I had to read it after the Lynch film, to see if it actually made any sense. Same with 2001. But usually, if you can watch it, your average kid WILL take the easy option. I did get out of the habit once I got past about 16 or so, which is lucky, just in case you were worried about my reading abilities!

Possably. Moonraker is the only one I know and teh film is way way off teh book. I don't know about souping up. Just set in teh time period appropriate.

I read Silence of the Lambs practically in one sitting. I thought it was so utterly brilliant I immediately went out and rented the video. What a disappointment! I think it's an excellent film, I don't think it was badly done, but it just couldn't live up to the book (or should I say, my imagination?)

I thought the late Jeremy Brett was the best Sherlock Holmes myself and not a pipe and deer-stalker for miles, just like the books.

A lot of bond films had to veer wildly away from the plot because of the times they were made in. By Moonraker, the idea of just a crappy little rocket was ludicrous, as was the whole different moustache thing. The book Moonraker, was not a blockbusting Bond type film. It was like the book of You only Live Twice, and shows the vulnerable Bond living on his wits (as superbly, albeit far too briefly, portrayed later by Tim Dalton). The whole Bond franchise was going into decline by this point anyway, and would not revive until they got rid of Roger Moore, the orange faced t**t. Bigger case inpoint for altering the plot entirely was The Spy Who Loved Me, which Fleming wouldn't sell the rights to unless they used a whole different plot. Mind you, I still prefer Moonraker the book, to Moonraker the film. "I think he's attempting re-entry sir!"

someone said blade was a novella first,and just to clear it up it was actually a comic book!
I've read most of the bond books,and I found that the two where so different I ended up thinking of them as completly unconnected in any way (although I did always picture bond as sean connery,cos he was brill)
Some of the star trek books are much better than any of the movies (insurrection anyone? didn't think so...)

Actually, another point, can the film ever live up to teh comic. I always feel that comics are teh halfway between film and books (Well, closer to film) But yet comic conversions rarely hit the mark. Blade was a fun action movie, X-Men was actually pretty good and some of the superman and batman films ahve been good but overall it seems like a difficult road.

You don't have to go far to find an author who has gotten so caught up in his film wealth that he has neglected his books. John Grisham's first two books were amazing. Then "The Firm" became a film and shortly afterward, "The Pelican Brief". His writing has gone downhill ever since. "A Time to Kill" was a masterpiece, "The Firm" likewise. Titles like "The Client", "The Rainmaker", and "The Runaway Jury" pushed the formula too far. He's down below Danielle Steele and Harlequin romances now and I haven't even bothered to read the last four or five

"someone said blade was a novella first,and just to clear it up it was actually a comic book!"

If you are referring to the film starring Wesley Snipes, I agree. But I believe the post actually referred to the film "BladeRunner" which was based on the novella "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick.

I am looking forward to/dreading the upcoming "K-PAX" since I just finished reading the novel about three hours ago, and the book was VERY good! I am suspicious though, that a sequel has been written and I have a fairly good idea what THAT means...

SC