Movies VS Book Battle

Sunday night was an EXCELLENT night for movies on TV. I had some stuff I planned to do, but ended up watching "The Hunt for the Red October" "Sahara" and "U.S. Marshalls."

Now it's intersting, of the three movies - in my opinion, "U.S. Marshalls" as a movie was the best of the three.

But as books, of the two that are books - that I know of ("Red October & Sahara"), "The Hunt for the Red October." Of course, if you ask me, "The Hunt for the Red October" is one of the best novels ever written!!!


Here's where my beef is. Why, WHy, WHY, "WHY" in the world would a screen writer change any of the sequences of just about ANY BOOK? Especially very GOOD books!!! WHY!!! You see 4 books pictured here on this post and all four movies were ruined by a screen writer changing stuff in the book.

Why, WHy, WHYYYYYYY?????? AAAAaarrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!




When a good book is written people enjoy the novel for what it is. I undestand, that a book cannot be made into a two hour movie. No problem, with what you do end up making - STAY TRUE to the story in the book. It's a good story. That's why people love it and will go see the movie. There is SO much good of the story to choose from. The action sequences are so awesome, use them. Don't "come up with your own!!!"




Man, I literally "HATE" that! Yes, there may be bugetary limitations, but you 'pay' dearly for the stuff you put in, so here's a thought, "Stay True to the STORY!!!"

Ok - got that out of my system!

Thanks!!!