MovieChat Forums > Along Came a Spider (2001) Discussion > The trouble with book adaptations (Spoil...

The trouble with book adaptations (Spoilers)


I'm beginning to wonder if any movie directors respect a bestselling author's material, enough to trust that it is indeed seaworthy: not some leaky vessel that needs patches and caulking here, whole planks ripped out and replaced there.

Re: Alex Cross...I'm really torn on this, because I love Morgan Freeman. He takes the "meaty" roles that Denzel Washington probably turns down because they're N. S. E. (not sexy enough.) But this is one instance where Denzel might have hewed to Patterson's character better. Alex Cross was supposed to be a wise and insightful shrink, yes. But he was also in the prime of early middle age, rigorously well-maintenanced (the book mentions him having washboard abs, etc.) Bless his patrician heart, but Freeman is well into his sixties, <i> and freely proclaims </i> that he is not the stuff romantic leads are made of.

This probably made it necessary to eliminate the subplot of Alex and Jezzie's ***TORRID*** sexual affair, and robs much of the story of its bite. They suffer through "jungle fever" -type prejudice from smug outsiders throughout the investigation, up to and including a burning cross on the lawn. The whole romantic conflict of interest also makes the betrayal hit REALLY hard at the end, when Cross realizes Jezzie is nothing but a cold-hearted opportunist who, along with her partnet/lover Devine, has played him every step of the way.

(Cross had also recently been made a widower, with two energetic---and still grieving---children. All of these traits affected his character. Yet in the movie we see 1.) a very much living wife and 2.) no kids?)

And the villain, Gary Soneji/Murphy. WOW, Hannibal Lechter would tip his hat to that complex monster...at least, in Patterson's book. Double lives, double faces. Up until the very end, you're left uncertain whether he has real Multiple Personality Disorder, or merely fakes it, so effectively he escapes the executioner's needle. (Yes, that's right, HE LIVES.)

In the movie you're left with the feeling Soneji would have let the little girl live, once his glory-lust was satisfied. Soneji in the book, never planned to let that child see the light of day.

reply

[deleted]

I think the main reason they changed the story so much for the movie is that people who didn't read the book my have thought it was a "Silence of the Lambs" knockoff. Detective uses killer in prison to catch killer on the loose. One person on this site has commented that the title doesn't make sense. Obviously they hadn't read the book, but even so, the part of the story that gives the title meaning isn't in the movie, or even the character involved in that plotline.

reply

I hate this movie! (And it's not even a bit like The Silence of the Lambs!)
Soneji is one of the most impressive characters ever! I love this book and I just can't understand why they have to make this awful movie out of it.
I think Morgan Freeman isn't good for the role of Alex at all, he's just too old. (Alex is described as a young Muhammed Ali in the novels...) And what did they do with Soneji? He has not even blond hair in the movie and why should he hide Megan on a boat? And what I just really can't understand is why they had to cut out Shrimpie Goldberg!
I hate this movie... It really sucks...

[quote]
It´s only after you´ve lost everything that you are free to do anything![quote]

reply

I don't think Soneji had blond hair in the book either, frodo. But yes, the movie isn't good, the book is great.

reply

Details no one cares about in a big screen thriller. There is enough sex and betrayal in daytime soaps.

reply

>Details no one cares about in a big screen thriller.

:D

Sex and betrayal are ALWAYS good for a big screen thriller. ;) Even if only from a marketing perspective. Shoot, they put bums-in-seats even when the movie isn't that GOOD. Case in point: the painfully pointless Baldwin-Kidman-Pullman groaner "Malice!" (Which begs the question, "when you're making a bad movie...do you KNOW it's a bad movie until it's finished?" Always wondered about that...)

But that wasn't my point anyway.

Directors are awfully quick to snatch up the rights to a bestselling book. Then they do a hatchet-job on the source material, making it so unrecognizable that they really might as well retitle it. Without even attaching a "loosely based on ______"-style disclaimer.

Makes the whole process of buying the rights pointless, surely? Simpler to just hire a hack screenwriter, tell him what you want, and churn out a new story from scratch. No muss, no fuss; no irate novelist, or disappointed fans.

This film a bit of a snoozer, and IMHO the sweeping revisions were directly to blame. If they'd left certain sections of the written plot intact, the resulting movie would have been pretty electric.

reply