by Hollywood loves to turn books into movies. I supposed that’s a good idea since most people don’t like to read. Well, that’s what Steve Jobs said in a New York Times article. He said, “Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year” (Whatever year that was. It was an old article). Oh, really? I know people who haven’t read a book in years.
But it’s usually the best-sellers that get made into movies. So, ironically, somebody must have been reading those books to turn them into best-sellers.
I think book-reading is an acquired hobby that you pick up as a kid, providing you have a parent or a mentor that encourages reading. I was a big book reader as a kid. When I was nine-years-old and living in a suburban neighborhood in Missouri there used to be this book-mobile that would park on a corner down the street. I was such a precocious child that I would read books that were above my age range. I remember one time I wanted to take out The Call of The Wild by Jack London. The librarian said, “Oh, no. That book is too old for you.” So, she handed me a few books that she felt were more suited for a 4th grader. I was offended. The books were in big print, too easy to read, too short. I insisted on Call of the Wild and I took it home to read. Yes, it did have big words I didn’t understand. But, nothing that a dictionary couldn’t handle.
The old saying “the book is better than the movie” is usually true. Maybe it’s because the movie studios like to change the entire plot, or a good percentage of the original story. They see a premise, or a theme, within the storyline that they like, buy the copyrights, and write a screenplay they feel will be easier to tell to the movie-going public. Or, maybe it’s because they have a political or social agenda they want to propagandize. For example, in the 1951 film The Day The Earth Stood Still we see at the end of the film Klaatu giving a New World Order speech where he pushes (or, threatens) globalism to an audience of scientists.
There was also a scene where Klaatu references the United Nation. And if the conspiracy theories are right, the UN with its Agenda 21 & 30, would probably welcome Klaatu’s planet as a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. Or, Klaatu can attack the Earth with robots. There’s nothing better than an alien invasion to bring Earth together to embrace the New World Order.
A globalist agenda is not in the original short story. Did you know TDTESS was based on a short story? Yes, it was: “Farewell to the Master” by Harry Bates, published in 1940.
Well, the original story is nothing like the movie.
The story begins after Klaatu has arrived in a space ship and lands on the front lawn of the White House. By his side is a eight-foot tall green-colored robot named Gnut (the movie changed the robot’s name to Gort). The first words out of the space man’s mouth is “I’m Klaatu and this is Gnut.” Klaatu is immediately shot dead and buried in a nearby mausoleum. The robot stands frozen in place. It doesn’t blow anything up, it doesn’t attack anyone, or shoot laser beams from its eyes. There is no Mrs Benson or a little boy Klaatu befriends. The protagonist of the story is a newspaper reporter. Late one night, he discovers that the robot is sneaking back into the ship. The reporter confronts Gnut and together they go to the mausoleum to retrieve a recording of Klaatu’s voice. Then the robot attempts to clone Klaatu from the recording. Well, that never made any sense to me. Wouldn’t it be better to clone from a sample of the corpse’s DNA instead of a machine? Anyway, the clone dies as soon as it’s created. At the end of the story the robot reveals he’s the master and the living being of Klaatu is the servant.
Getting back to the movie: There’s something I have to get off my chest about Gort the robot. Have you noticed that Gort has “Josh Brolin-arms?” (Or, better-known-as stubby arms out-of-proportion to the body)? The robot is obviously “a man in a monster suit” played by the extremely tall Lock Martin. Martin donned the suit anytime there were scenes when the robot was moving. But in the scenes when the robot wasn’t moving they substituted the actor with a fiberglass model. Whoever built it made the arms too short. Shame on you. Didn’t you pay attention in your anatomy art classes?
Another well-known sci-fi movie based on a short story is The Thing. I’m talking about the 1951 version. It was produced by one of my favorite film directors, Howard Hawks. Hawks is best known for his romantic and comedy classics starring Humphrey Bogart and Cary Grant. Horror films just didn’t seem to be a genre you’d expect from Hawks, which is probably why he produced and not directed the film. But still The Thing had Hawk’s quirky humor, his same fast-talking-wise-cracking characters you’d see in his romantic comedies like Bringing Up Baby or His Girl Friday.
But the The Thing was scary. But it’s nothing like the short story it’s based on: Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell. The only theme in the book Hollywood kept in the movie was: a flying saucer is found in the South Pole, its alien occupant is encased in a block of ice and brought to a military installation, escapes, and kills people. When the military scientists discover that the Thing is made up of plant matter–or as one of the character says, “A giant carrot”–they’re now able to kill the creature by cooking it with a blast of high voltage. But in the book, the alien is more complicated. It’s described as some kind of a predatory life form who absorbs other life forms, thus mimicking its victims appearance. This strikes paranoia in the hearts of the men in the military base. One by one, they try to determine who of their colleagues is human or alien.
Well, I guess Hawks and friends thought the mimic idea was too far over the heads of the 1950s movie-going public. Yup, like a killer plant humanoid was a better idea. However, the 1982 re-make by John Carpenter does stay faithful to the John Campbell’s short story. So, if you get a chance, check out Carpenter’s The Thing. It’s scary as hell.
Read a book! It’s better than the movie.