The Evolution of Science Fiction discussion

Last night I watched Under the Skin which is based on the book by Michel Faber. It really was loosely based on the book rather than an adaptation and in an interview the director Jonathan Glazer says it is more "inspired by".

The film was completely different from the book in many ways other than the central premise of an alien driving round picking up men. The film was really stylish in places and quite odd in others and at the end I realised I preferred the film to the book which doesn't happen very often. In this case it maybe due to the fact the film was not at all the same as the book but it did make me wonder which sci-films are better than the book they are based on.

I like "Blade Runner" better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. I'm not a real fan of Dick's writing & it's tough to beat a movie with Harrison Ford & Rutger Hauer.

Vincent Price in "The Last Man On Earth" is every bit as good as I Am Legend & very faithful to it, as I recall. "The Omega Man" was good too, but it departed from the story in many ways & was just fun camp. The latest movie with Will Smith was awful, though.

2001: A Space Odyssey made far more of an impression on me as a movie than it did as a book. I saw a 3+ hour version of it on a huge screen at the Worlds Fair in San Antonio in the late 60's (67 or 68). Absolutely blew my mind. I didn't read the book until 5 years later or so. I've always liked the movie best.

A Clockwork Orange is similar to the above in that I saw the movie first & it made a huge impression. I loved the book, but the first version I read was the one the film was based on - the first US edition where they left out the last chapter which flips the entire story. It was decades later before I read the full novel.

Dr. Strangelove, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb is another where I saw the movie first & liked it best. Again, probably due to when I saw it & the actors involved.

The first, low budget PBS version of The Lathe of Heaven was excellent. Not better than the book, but it added a lot to the book for me. I think reading the book before seeing the movie helped.

The Hunger Games was far better as a movie than a book for me. I expect the sort of holes that Collins had in the story out of Hollywood & can endure them much easier.

I would probably say Bladerunner is better than Do Androids Dream but to be honest, they are both very different. Generally the same in terms of story but altogether a very different feel with the characters and world portrayed differently.

I do think 2001 is better than the book but I'm not sure that counts as the book is more of an accompaniment than the film being an adaptation. They were meant to go side by side.

Jim wrote: "I like "Blade Runner" better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. I'm not a real fan of Dick's writing & it's tough to beat a movie with Harrison Ford & Rutger Hauer.

Vincent Pr..."

I tend to agree, (haven't read Dr Strangelove) except for The Hunger Games. For me watching the movie after reading the book was kind of pointless. It was true to the book, but much compressed. My wife, however, was incensed that they altered a part that she felt was important.

Jim wrote: "I like "Blade Runner" better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. I'm not a real fan of Dick's writing & it's tough to beat a movie with Harrison Ford & Rutger Hauer.

Vincent Pr..."

2001: A Space Odyssey is an amazing film, i've not read the book though. It was only when I read 3001: The Final Odyssey that I realised that the book was written concurrently with the film. I'd always assumed the film was an adaptation of the book.

Normally when I like the book it's rare that I like the film better. There are a few I like equally Invasion of the Body Snatchers being a particular favourite of mine (1950's version).

I rated Jack Finney's Body Snatchers at five stars. The 1950's version of the film with Kevin McCarthy is great, too.

Clark wrote 2001 for Kubrick to make the film. I think the film was made before the book was finished. I didn't much care for the cryptic hippie light show at the end of the film. The book made sense of that, but otherwise, I thought the film was better. On the other hand, my wife classifies it as a snorefest.

I'm on the fence with "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". I liked the 1978 version best because of the cast. I guess I did like that one better than the book. My review covers the various films a bit.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Am I right in thinking that the majority of people/SF fans still regard the film Blade Runner(or any one of the various cuts of it)as vastly better than the original novel from Phil K Dick?
We have to remember that the book and film are two very different things, with the book containing many elements left out for a number of reasons. Should all of those pieces have been left out or not?
Given just how amazingly influential and icon the movie has been for around three decades, the answer seem that the idea from K Dick was great-as his often were-but Ridley Scott shaped it into a more sharp and cohesive onscreen classic.

A very controversial choice might be the Dune film from David Lynch, although he later took his name away from the cinema cut.
It was a very huge budget movie at the time and lost just about as much money, a massive flop on release. Lynch did try to offer something like a four/five hour cut but it was rejected and the shorter version released and bombed.
Some say the book was just far too huge to push into around two hours, with way too much information/backstory/plot for audiences to absorb too quickly but...
...I have always really liked his messed up adaptation, initially the cinema cut, then years later saw a longer cut, just as interesting.
There was then a decade or so back, a three part tv adaptation-this probably worked better, with the plot much more understandable to viewers but Lynch crafted something so very striking and captivating, like he regularly does.
So the film was not perfect but it had something very strong, affecting and striking that does not always come with all SF films.

Jo wrote: "Jim wrote: "I like "Blade Runner" better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. I'm not a real fan of Dick's writing & it's tough to beat a movie with Harrison Ford & Rutger Hauer...."

i preferred the Donald Sutherland remake a lot more, the ending was excellent and one i can vividly recall.

John Carpenter's The Thing and The Fog were far better than the short story/book.

Other notable mentions:

20000 League Under the Sea
Original Planet of the Apes
Soylent Green
The Dead Zone

Jurassic Park is better than the book, but the book is still a good read. The film is mostly true to the book with a few exceptions. For example, in the book the main character loves kids, whereas in the film he hates kids but grows to love them by the end.