Extreme Places I Had Gone
Or: Why I actually like the Bourne movies better than at least the first book.
I did warn you this was coming.
Of course, while in the Bourne vs. Bourne post I was at least trying to be objective, this is totally subjective. And I am totally biased from the start.
Oh, yeah, spoilers ahead.
1. Plot. The plot of the movie The Bourne Identity basically runs like this: Guy is found with no memory, guy has to figure out who he is while people sent by the CIA try to kill him, guy figures out he was an assassin, guy tells his now former CIA bosses to leave him the hell alone. The plot of the book The Bourne Identity basically runs like this: Guy is found with no memory, guy has to figure out who he is while people sent by a famous assassin he pissed off try to kill him, guy is framed for stuff, guy figures out he was a sort of spy pretending to be an assassin, guy has to deal with both the famous assassin and his confused intelligence bosses wanting him out of the picture.
Now, generally speaking I'm a person who loves a complex plot. I'm a huge Sun Sword fan, after all. I am all for intrigue, especially of the political kind. I'm more likely to squee over that than over a ship.
BUT. If your spy novel is primarily a thriller, not political commentary of some kind, I really think it helps to have one simple plotline to draw from. Complications can reduce the tension, not multiply it. Let us take the case of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, by John Le Carre. The plot is really very simple. Smiley sets Carla back by uncovering the mole. Now, you can ladle all the awesome detail you want onto this simple plot, but the tension of this simplicity stands. This is one of the reasons why T,T,S,S remains completely riveting even when all Smiley's doing is politely interviewing people.
In short, I think the movie plot serves the purposes of a thriller better.
2. Dialogue. Okay, I'll just say it flat-out, I did not like Ludlum's dialogue. Or a lot of the "inner thoughts" displayed. If people do talk or think like that, they don't do it nearly that often. I struggled with his whole characterization at points simply because the people being characterized expressed themselves at important times in ways that often sounded false to me. The dialogue in the movies, on the other hand, I've never had a problem with.
3. Jason and Marie. I just don't feel the chemistry in the book. If you're going to make a relationship that important, you have to sell me on the chemistry. I was not sold. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are, but I'm not one. There's loads of chemisty between Damon and Potente in the movies, though.
4. The women. Now, I really do think book!Marie is pretty awesome. Doctors in economics for the win. However, she's the only "good" woman in the book. There are two other women in the thing, they both work for the evil assassin, and they both end up kinda breaking down. One of them is continually greatly disparaged, in a way that bothered me, even if she was evil. The movies (and I've checked, she is a movie-specific character) eventually give us Pam Landy. Pam "she'll find the guy you're looking for in five minutes when you might never have found him" Landy. And even if we just stick with the movie Identity, it has Nicci Parsons, who, while not "good" (at least not at that point), is fully competent at her job. She does not break down at the end when everything's going to hell. And, well, while book!Marie is awesome, movie!Marie feels more real to me (see points 2 and 3).
5. I'm too cynical. Y'see, the government spending huge amounts of money and a good deal of time on and the chance that they can lure out and capture a famous assassin? I don't buy it. It's worth noting that while I'm reading Ludlum does get me to buy it, but once I step away from the book I don't. Now, an underfunded international task force doing something stupid like sending a heavily armed squad against said assassin and failing spectacularly, that I can buy. (Interesting side note, the Carlos of the book was based on Carlos the Jackal, a high-profile terrorist with a somewhat mixed record of success who is now serving life in prison in France. And I can totally buy how he was arrested.) I can also buy a small group of sneaky bastards at the CIA deciding to start assassinations for their benefit and hiding it as an "advance game program."
[Now the really odd thing, as karakael has pointed out, is that in spite of my twisted views? I have every intention of working for the government. I guess I expect the worst so I'll be ready to fix it?]
6. I just like movie!Bourne more. Of course, I'm very biased toward movie!Bourne. But look at the differences post. Movie!Bourne is just more my type of character.
EDIT- I knew I had another reason.
7. The ending. The movieThe Bourne Identity has a very satisfying ending. I felt cheated out of a proper ending by the book. I mean, I know there are sequels, but still. I wanted more questions answered.
This is not to say that I did not enjoy the book. It really does have some priceless parts. It's a perfectly good book. It's just that the very basic premise behind it inspired what I find to be better movies.
Y'know, I'm trying to think of another case where I prefer the movies to the book(s), and I can't think of any.
(Mind you, if I had read The Godfather books, I would probably come down in favor of the films, but I think the author did too. And I have no idea how good or not the book that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is based on is. But I'm willing to find out once I can read Chinese well enough. I love the movie, but it's fully possible the book's better. )
EDIT: I lied. Any movie based on Frankenstein is better than that book, simply because any adaptation cannot fail to make Victor Frankenstein at least slightly more tolerable.
I did warn you this was coming.
Of course, while in the Bourne vs. Bourne post I was at least trying to be objective, this is totally subjective. And I am totally biased from the start.
Oh, yeah, spoilers ahead.
1. Plot. The plot of the movie The Bourne Identity basically runs like this: Guy is found with no memory, guy has to figure out who he is while people sent by the CIA try to kill him, guy figures out he was an assassin, guy tells his now former CIA bosses to leave him the hell alone. The plot of the book The Bourne Identity basically runs like this: Guy is found with no memory, guy has to figure out who he is while people sent by a famous assassin he pissed off try to kill him, guy is framed for stuff, guy figures out he was a sort of spy pretending to be an assassin, guy has to deal with both the famous assassin and his confused intelligence bosses wanting him out of the picture.
Now, generally speaking I'm a person who loves a complex plot. I'm a huge Sun Sword fan, after all. I am all for intrigue, especially of the political kind. I'm more likely to squee over that than over a ship.
BUT. If your spy novel is primarily a thriller, not political commentary of some kind, I really think it helps to have one simple plotline to draw from. Complications can reduce the tension, not multiply it. Let us take the case of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, by John Le Carre. The plot is really very simple. Smiley sets Carla back by uncovering the mole. Now, you can ladle all the awesome detail you want onto this simple plot, but the tension of this simplicity stands. This is one of the reasons why T,T,S,S remains completely riveting even when all Smiley's doing is politely interviewing people.
In short, I think the movie plot serves the purposes of a thriller better.
2. Dialogue. Okay, I'll just say it flat-out, I did not like Ludlum's dialogue. Or a lot of the "inner thoughts" displayed. If people do talk or think like that, they don't do it nearly that often. I struggled with his whole characterization at points simply because the people being characterized expressed themselves at important times in ways that often sounded false to me. The dialogue in the movies, on the other hand, I've never had a problem with.
3. Jason and Marie. I just don't feel the chemistry in the book. If you're going to make a relationship that important, you have to sell me on the chemistry. I was not sold. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are, but I'm not one. There's loads of chemisty between Damon and Potente in the movies, though.
4. The women. Now, I really do think book!Marie is pretty awesome. Doctors in economics for the win. However, she's the only "good" woman in the book. There are two other women in the thing, they both work for the evil assassin, and they both end up kinda breaking down. One of them is continually greatly disparaged, in a way that bothered me, even if she was evil. The movies (and I've checked, she is a movie-specific character) eventually give us Pam Landy. Pam "she'll find the guy you're looking for in five minutes when you might never have found him" Landy. And even if we just stick with the movie Identity, it has Nicci Parsons, who, while not "good" (at least not at that point), is fully competent at her job. She does not break down at the end when everything's going to hell. And, well, while book!Marie is awesome, movie!Marie feels more real to me (see points 2 and 3).
5. I'm too cynical. Y'see, the government spending huge amounts of money and a good deal of time on and the chance that they can lure out and capture a famous assassin? I don't buy it. It's worth noting that while I'm reading Ludlum does get me to buy it, but once I step away from the book I don't. Now, an underfunded international task force doing something stupid like sending a heavily armed squad against said assassin and failing spectacularly, that I can buy. (Interesting side note, the Carlos of the book was based on Carlos the Jackal, a high-profile terrorist with a somewhat mixed record of success who is now serving life in prison in France. And I can totally buy how he was arrested.) I can also buy a small group of sneaky bastards at the CIA deciding to start assassinations for their benefit and hiding it as an "advance game program."
[Now the really odd thing, as karakael has pointed out, is that in spite of my twisted views? I have every intention of working for the government. I guess I expect the worst so I'll be ready to fix it?]
6. I just like movie!Bourne more. Of course, I'm very biased toward movie!Bourne. But look at the differences post. Movie!Bourne is just more my type of character.
EDIT- I knew I had another reason.
7. The ending. The movieThe Bourne Identity has a very satisfying ending. I felt cheated out of a proper ending by the book. I mean, I know there are sequels, but still. I wanted more questions answered.
This is not to say that I did not enjoy the book. It really does have some priceless parts. It's a perfectly good book. It's just that the very basic premise behind it inspired what I find to be better movies.
Y'know, I'm trying to think of another case where I prefer the movies to the book(s), and I can't think of any.
(Mind you, if I had read The Godfather books, I would probably come down in favor of the films, but I think the author did too. And I have no idea how good or not the book that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is based on is. But I'm willing to find out once I can read Chinese well enough. I love the movie, but it's fully possible the book's better. )
EDIT: I lied. Any movie based on Frankenstein is better than that book, simply because any adaptation cannot fail to make Victor Frankenstein at least slightly more tolerable.