In news:Kevin Willoughby <kevin@scispace.org.invalid> typed:
> Christopher M. Jones said:
> > "rk" <stellare@NOSPAMPLEASE.erols.com> wrote:
> > > Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> > > > Why? Exploring different alterative seems to be the
> > > > raison-d'etre of science fiction.
> > > I find a set of books (or movie or sequels/prequels/whatever)
> > > that are not consistent to be disconcerting.
> > It's like a book adapted to a movie that's nothing like the
> > book.
>
> Kubrick is notorious for this. Compare, e.g., Lolita. Kubrick's film
> is quite different from the book. The more recent Adrian Lyne Lolita
> movie is much more true to the book.
>
>
> > If you're gonna freestyle it then go all the way,
> > let it stand alone on its own merits as an individual work.
>
> Amen, brother. Kubrick's 2001 and Lolita each are capable of standing
> on their own, despite being based on extraordinary books. Lyne's
> Lolita is merely ordinary in comparison.

    I feel exactly the same way about "The Shining."  Read the book
after the movie and both stand up quite well despite the variations.  I
recently saw a poor copy of 2001 at a theater last fall and despite the
cracks and stuff, it's still an excellent piece of work.
-- 
Mike
________________________________________________________
"Colorado Ski Country, USA"   Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.