Details in Novelizations that Explain Things in Films

[JoMamma_Smurf]

"Dances With Wolves" by Michael Blake answered some of the questions present in the original theatrical release of the movie, such as why the fort was deserted when Lt. Dunbar (Costner) arrived.

Technically, these same questions were answered in the "extended" and "director's cut" versions of the movie because Costner had filmed Blake's entire novel faithfully. The studio wanted a movie that was considerably shorter than Costner's original 236 minute version, so nearly an hour was removed for the original theatrical version. Costner's original full-length version was subsequently released in theaters and, of course, on DVD, and Blu-Ray.

Yup. The directors cut is one of my favorite movies of all time.

 

[CB2001]

I didn't like the Pitch Black one at all. It seemed like a pathetic attempt by the author to make Riddick into a more classic hero instead of an anti-hero (probably because he had no idea how to work an anti-hero in writing). The character was far more interesting when he was just a straight up bad guy who just happened to be in a situation where he ended up the good guy. I'm glad they ignored that backstory for the sequel.

Actually, I disagree with you there. To me, it came off as him being a classic anti-hero, basically someone who started off good and then became a cold-blooded killer because he was always being chased, slowly losing any hope of being a normal human again, with the exception of having minor concern for kids, which in turn explained why he cared about Jack/Kyra and what happened to her in the second film (and it not being just "we survived a desert planet with aliens that wanted to eat us"/typical survivor's relationship thing)

The Aliens one was cool, but I seem to remember it slightly differently.. the aliens knew he was there, they just ignored him.

I haven't read it myself (though I have two copies), but my Dad did. Maybe someone else here can confirm which one is correct.

I'm almost embarrassed to say I read the Hackers novelization. VERY different from the movie. The author replaced the Apple laptops with PC laptops, made all the Hackers friends, threw in some additional cheezy lines, and actually expanded on what happened to some of the characters at the end. In the movie, two of the characters are still in jail (or so you are forced to assume). In the book, they're all sitting around talking about the punishment they got from the secret service (mostly community service and the like).

In my opinion, the movie was more about art and imagery than actual "hacking" and the book, obviously, was more about the characters and the hacking story.

It was the first, and last, novelization I read.

Wait... There was a novelization of Hackers? I didn't know that.

 

[Usagi Pilgrim]

I think mine would have to be the Ang Lee Hulk novel. There were several things I thought were mis-handled in the movie, but the novel made some of them a little better.

The main thing I remembered is that Bruce's adoptive mom was something like a government nurse/agent who was actually keeping an eye on him. They knew about the experiments his dad had done & were monitering him for those reasons. As I type that, it sounds pretty ridiculous...but I swear it was better in the book.:wacko

 

[Flagg]

I read the Aliens novel back in high school so my memory may be a bit hazy here... As I remember right Bishop was crawling in the pipe heading down to remote pilot the dropship when through an opening in the side of the pipe an inner set of alien jaws shot in. They stopped before munching him and then just went back and the alien took off. Bishop assumed it was because he wasn't "alive" and would serve no purpose as either food or as a host that the Alien left him alone.

 

[Jedi2016]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

CB: My problem with Pitch Black is that the backstory appears to be solely the creation of the book's author. I don't think Riddick was ever meant to be anything other than what he was presented as in the films. I read it as the author's attempt to completely rewrite the character's backstory, against the design of the character's creators. The fact that none of that has ever been even hinted at in either film would seem to back up my theory, that Riddick had always been a straight-up bad guy. He even implies in the second film that he's spent a good chunk of his life, including at least some of his childhood, in prison ("Pretend you're talking to someone educated in the penal system. Better yet... don't pretend.", and the statement from the first film "Think someone could spend half their life in the slam and not believe?") Given that, according to the book's so-called "backstory", Riddick would have been a child when the "hero" bit happened.

 

[TheDoctor]

Wait... There was a novelization of Hackers? I didn't know that.

Amazon.com: Hackers (9780061063756): David Bischoff: Books

Don't say I didn't warn you...

One of my favorite parts (in the book) is the scene where The Plague is with Dade in his room and The Plague tells Dade he could have done much more damage with a simple modification to his code. The Plague then opens up the source code and changes a Less then to Greater than - and Dade's reaction is something like "Wow! You're right!"

Seriously? My guess was that was in an earlier version of the movie script and they wisely cut it out.

 

[CB2001]

Amazon.com: Hackers (9780061063756): David Bischoff: Books

Don't say I didn't warn you...

One of my favorite parts (in the book) is the scene where The Plague is with Dade in his room and The Plague tells Dade he could have done much more damage with a simple modification to his code. The Plague then opens up the source code and changes a Less then to Greater than - and Dade's reaction is something like "Wow! You're right!"

Seriously? My guess was that was in an earlier version of the movie script and they wisely cut it out.

Thanks. I may have to snag one and check it out.