I was recently reading a thread where members were trashing the film adaptation of the book War of the Worlds. Now I watched the film, but more importantly I actually read the novel. No not a book adaptation of the film, but the original book itself as it was originally written. To be honest the recent film was incredibly true to the book. In fact I would dare say it is one of the most direct translations I have seen on film. So I am sitting here now wondering was it the movie they hated, or is it the book that they hate. How many of them have actually read the book, and if not how can they make a fair comparisson.

When I look at Jurassic Park both the novel and the movie. I see much the same thing. Yes some things needed to be omitted and truncacted, but it is basically the same story in some places it is almost verbatum from the book in many scenes. So that really makes me wonder. I mean you have two movies that are fairly close to another in how they are respectful of their source books, but one is applauded, and the other reviled. Do we have to chalk it up to ignorance. Do we blame the movie for being bad when it is being true to the source material. I mean that usually drives people up the wall when something isn't true to its source. 

Honestly I enjoyed the novel myself, and I think the modern take on it was rather compelling. I would recommend that for anyone who hasn't read the novel. Do yourself a favor and read it. By the way the main character in the book isn't very likable either, and it is a rather bleak commentary on the nature of humanity.

Being true to a novel doesn't mean its a movie of high quality. They're different mediums that require different approaches.

i liked most of the film, i just didnt understand the ending.

Well I didn't like all that family crap they added but it's probably more compelling then just a man alone trying to find his wife. The movie was okay overall though, had some great scenes but some were pretty lame (pulling the guy out inside the alien? bleh). The book was published in the last 1800's so I give them props for managing to modernize the thing more than a century later, and doing it quite true to the story.

The ending is kind of anticlimactic in the movie. It had a better fit in the novel, where a hopeless sense was around for quite a while and the main character giving himself up to the aliens only to find they are actually dieing is good stuff. It was just lame and kind of confusing in the movie.

"i just didnt understand the ending."

Basically, the aliens from Mars (was it Mars in the movie?) are killed from the earth's bacteria - all that shit we have grown to immune to over time.

Which film are you talking about? The 1950's film adaptation was great as a film. However the Tom Cruise one was terrible. Mainly because it had Tom Cruise in it. Just because a film is honourable to the novel doesn't make it a good film. However Tom Cruise automatically ruins everything he's in just by being in it. I don't like Tom Cruise.

I liked the film....people hate it cuz of Tom Cruise ( which was one of the dumbest reasons I've heard of hating a movie....he sucks as a person but he's a great actor and pretty good in this) and the ending. I for one hate the ending..... cuz Robbie shouldve died....it wouldve made more sense than him automatically popping up in the end with no scratches.... but the 95% of the film taht happened before that was awesome....You can't tell me you ween't shocked the first time you saw those people get killed by the tripod or the pier scene ( which was epic...they shouldve died technically...) or the whole scene with Tim Robbins as the crazy surivior that was ready to turn on you at any second....all that was great.I remember bein on the edge of my seat when I saw it back in '05 and there was a thunderstorm right when were leaving and everyone who was with us was scared to go outside... lol

The aliens dying thing was from the book and it was actually executed well...I really dont see what the problem was with that.

@ DS lover
if you dont like him so much why you watch the movie?

Just stating...if you can't seperate the man from the actor dont watch the movie. I can honestly say I love Cold Mountain but i think Jude Law is a complete jackass...doesnt stop me from loving the movie. Plus Nicole Kidman was petty hott in it but that's beside the point.

I agree that the ending worked much, much better in the novel, over several hundred pages and several weeks of story time, than in the movie, over two hours and essentially a weekend.

It had some excellent scenes - the panic on the river is genuinely chilling, and the scene I always come back to when I'm in a charitable mood - but it's hampered by Spielberg's sentimentality and an anticlimactic ending. It's not bad, but it's not good.

tom cruise is only good when playing really crazy people (probably because its so easy for him to relate)

Ever seen the sky one adaption of the Colour of magic and the Light fantastic? It's good, but it's nothing like the book. Heck they even manage to cut out an entire main character.

Also, isn't the original book set from the view of the narrator? I don't remember that perspective in the latest film, but I have only seen it once and that was years ago.

Off topic: If you want to see how not to do an adaption then read I am legend and then watch the film, It's like a different story.

Jurassic park had a more entertaining story and no Tom Cruise.

plus the music was awesome.