I LOVE Alfonso Cuarón’s sci-fi action movie Children of Men. I’ve watched maybe six times and every time, the ending always almost brings me to tears. So when I learned it was adapted from P.D. James’ book of the same name, it was a no-brainer deciding what my next book would be.
After finishing the book, it wasn’t difficult to reach to the conclusion that I enjoyed the movie better.
While James’ book gives a more in-depth look at how human infertility and humanity’s slow death march towards extinction affects the sexual dynamic between men and women and almost demented ways humans try to cope with a world without children or a race of dead men walking, I feel the book dedicates WAY too much time describing the failing of human civilization and the Regrets and guilt of Theo Faron. It’s not even until after 2/3 through the book where it feels like the plot and story are properly paced and stuff of consequence actually begin to happen.
The film’s adaptation by, comparison, feels consistent in its pacing and the world building and woe-is-mes of Theo feel more compact a take up less of the audience’s time.
What books do you feel were worse than its film adaptation and why?
Two books for me:
The Perfect Storm. Emotional, intense, action-packed movie with romance and heartbreak. The book had a tiny snippet into the story of the ship and her crew, but spent so much time focusing on other stuff to fill pages.
Into the Wild. The movie was just SO good. From the soundtrack to the cast and scenery, it’s breathtaking and packed such an emotional punch for me. It’s an unforgettable movie. The book was often interesting and captured the nomadic soul of McCandless, but didn’t have the same emotional impact on me as the movie did.
In both of these cases I watched the movie first, so that might factor in. But I’m pretty confident with these choices.
Agree with Into the Wild. Krakauer’s insistence on working his own story into it didn’t help the book at all.