OT: Field of Dreams vs Shoeless Joe

[gregebowman]

Field of Dreams is one of my favorite movies. I've always been curious about the book it was based on, and since I've been using the computers here at the library, it finally occurred to me to check out the book and see what the differences are between the book and the movie. Most people will tell you the book is always better, but when it comes to this, I feel the movie was definitely the better of the two. There's almost no similiarity between the two, and if you didn't know the movie, you might pass on the book. I didn't like it, and there was hardly any recognizable scenes in the book that I was familiar with. I won't go into them, but if you have been curious like me and still haven't read the book, I would advise not to do so. It might sully your memory of the movie.

[capnq]

Another movie that departs radically from the book it was based on is Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The book, Who Censored Roger Rabbit?, has an entirely different plot, and has a much darker pulp/noir feel to it. I liked both, though.

Many of the James Bond films only share a title with the book, and the novelizations of the films make it hard to find the original books.

[gregebowman]

capnq said:

Many of the James Bond films only share a title with the book, and the novelizations of the films make it hard to find the original books.

I know. the only James Bond novel that I've read was The Spy Who Loved Me, and that was definitely a different stoy altogether. I think there was a brief mention of a submarine in the story, and they must have used that to make a 2 hour movie. I think the original book was about 100 pages, or so it seemed. It was awfully thin.