ROTS: The Book vs The Movie

solojones posted on 5/25/05 10:44am

---

It obviously shows that he's a huge Obi-Wan fan and as a fellow fan I have to say I liked the extras there for the General [face_wink] ... but at times I felt he almost made Obi-Wan too perfect. He's more conflicted and ambiguous in the film, I think. I love that about the film.[hr][/blockquote]

I disagree. I think Obi-Wan is shown to be more conflicted in the novel, especially when he finds out Anakin led the temple massacre.

 

I'm enjoying reading the book and filling in some of the movie (though I tend to grab onto the ideas Stover presents that I like and discard some of his notions about character motivations I find somewhat off). I don't really get this whole Book vs. Movie thing. Kind of like painting vs. sculpture. Is the Mona Lisa better than David? How does one even answer such a question? Not that the book or movie quite reach those levels *grin*.

The book has fleshed things out a bit for me, kind of like the Clone Wars cartoon, and added another layer to the universe, but ultimately, for me, Star Wars is about the movies, the incredible visuals, the sounds, the music and yes, the cheesy dialogue (have you really listened to some of the OT stuff? Some of that is just as silly as the PT stuff)...if I wanted deep characterization, I'd go read Ulysses or watch Remains of the Day. Honestly, that's just not what I'm expecting from Star Wars. If I read the book, with no visual reference for most of the scense, I probably would've said it wasn't very good. However, in my mind, when I read the book, I can hear Obi-Wan's voice saying those lines and imagine the space battles and what GG looks like...I think that really helps my enjoyment of the book.

Oh, and if I wanted someone kicking butt and quipping about it, I'd watch Buffy. Thank God those ridiculous Vader-isms got cut from the movie. Yikes, that was bad on so many levels.

 

I must say I like the extreme detail the book goes into vs the movie.

 

Sabre - you summed that up quite well. I could not have said it better myself.
You can't compare the two mediums as either the film nor novel were direct adaptations from each other - the main story all stemmed from Lucas's head and both evolved in their separate ways. Obviously, there needs to be common ground between the two however the art in which the plot is enacted takes two different flavours.
Personally, I thought Stover's work was quite good. Seeing that he's taking another's vision and writing a novel in context of both the movies and expanded universe of SW - the novel is satisfying. There is difference in seeing Yoda concede his duel with Palpatince versus reading it and realizing that Yoda merely defeats himself in pride as the master takes in the Sith have evolved past his abilities - the film could never have explained that facet of the mythology. On the other hand, the tremendous visuals, the glorious sound effects, especially the buzzing of the lightsabre is a sound which needs to be benchmarked - that is where the strength of film lies.
Does one know that Mace Windu is a master of Vapaad where it not for the novel? I certainly didn't. Reading the novel only amplifies one's enjoyment of the film and vice versa.
My two cents.

 

Ok GG, here goes, don't worry I'll be nice =)
I too read the book. I loved it. All of the introspective stuff was great. All that " this is how it feels to be So and so right now"... awsome
What I didn't like about the movie was that it really felt thrown together. The dialog was horrible, the acting was stiff, no chemistry between the actors, everybody looked like they were tired, the lightsaber battles were to short, or you couldn't really see them. The whole thing with Grievous being sickly , coughing all the time. Too many things to really say on this post. I just expected more from lucas. He owes us that much. Like I said I'm a huge fan. I've been a star wars nut my whole life. It's not like I was expecting casablanca,or the godfather, but sheeeeze I didn't expect this. Sorry If I upset anyone but this is how I feel. I feel that if the fans helped you build your empire you should feed them what they want to eat.

 

I just bought the book, doing the same thing I have done in the past. See the movie, then read the book. It ain't the writing quality of Old Man and the Sea, but so what? Perhaps many of you should enjoy it both ways and relax a little.

 

Which was better? Not sure whether you can compare the two; but in terms of which details the story better, it's the book by a mile.

 

I think both the book and the movie are equal storywise. Some different things happen in the book that you don't see in the film.

 

I think the two of them are equal, but have different strenghts. The book gave us some insight that just wasn't in the movie, that needed to be there. The moive was a visual master peace, and i thought ewan and hayden did an excellent job with there parts. Hell r2 and yoda were amazingly cool in the movie.

BTW: I started a similar thread in the lit forum if any one wants to go check it out.

 

Also, I think that it's easy for some people to forget that Star Wars is DESIGNED to be a cheesy space opera.

I'm sorry but the OT was done much better. RotS was too corny by miles.

I also think the RotS novel was almost infinately better than the movie. I was shocked by how bad it was. I'm sorry, but that's how I felt.

 

the book spent toooooo much time on the dooku thing. the ending of the book is SO SO rushed. it drove me nuts. i don't think it was well-written.

 

the book spent toooooo much time on the dooku thing.

I loved the fight with Dooku in the book. I was horrified by how lame it was in ther movie.

 

I think all the prquels suffer from the same problem, which is that certain scenes and lines here and there undermine the entire feel of the rest of the movie.

i've found that both Eps I and II are much improved with efficient use of the fast-forward button. Something tells me ROTS will be the same.

The OT was an effort of collaberative talent, the PT was a one-man show run by someone surrounded by yes-men who obviously didnt know (or care about) the details of the original story the way we do.

nothing to me has been a more of a collasal disappointment than the prequels, which may inevitably hamper my ability to enjoy the originals, and that angers me most.

 

Well, that's nice. Care to give us your opinion on the ROTS book?

 

ive been waiting for a thread like this....

im a big fan of the novel. i read it twice before seeing rots. just off the top of my head, things explained better in the book then on screen were:

- sidious' plot to capture skywalker on the invisable hand
- anakin's turn
- sidious killing mace's posse
- yoda's communication with qui gon
- and of course general grievous....

there are of course plenty more things that are supurbly detailed in the novel. time restraints of course are the main reason. but the ep 3 novel, as well as labrynth of evil, detail the story much better then just watching the film imo...

 

I enjoyed the book but not all that much. It is obvious that Stover's favorite character is Mace because he wrote that other book about him and it seemd like Stover made Mace mention Stover's other book Shatterpoint as often as possible. It seemed like a commercial for his prior work. Screw that. And he mentions Vaapad about a million times.

And why dedicate most of the book to the first part of the film. It seemed he wrapped it up too quick.

 

I personally think Stover showed some real skill.

I loved the "This is what it is like to be Anakin Skywalker right now" ....

Then later: "This is what it is like to be Darth Vader right now"....

Also, the way it began by showing Obi-Wan and Anakin through the eyes of children. . .awesome. And the way it describes Kenobi as being an extension of the force.

The coolest thing about the Yoda / Sidious duel was when Yoda realizes that the Sith have been training for a thousand years for this battle while the Jedi had only trained to re-fight the past wars.

Good stuff.

 

I have seen the movie only twice. I am in the process of reading the book now and I am 3/4 of the way through it. The book fills alot of necessary gaps and I suggest everybody should read it if you havent already. When I am done reading the book I will go see the movie again for the first time on a digital screen in the city at the Ziegfeld. Can't wait!

 

Personally, I don't really get the comparison.

George Lucas is Star Wars.
EP III - the movie is the REALITY.
EP III - the novel is an interpretation.

It's like you'd never seen the moon before, and someone describes it to you - "It's this massive satellite which orbits the Earth. The atmosphere on there is remarkably thin, the comparative lack of gravity means you can bound great distances and heights almost effortlessly..." (Then they go into great detail about moon landings - unmanned and manned -; what a great and exciting time the 60s were; and how The Beatles turned the music industry on it's head in just 8 short years).

So the next night, you decide to take a look at this wonderful thing.
And what do you see?
A little glowing white disc in the sky.

But that is the REALITY.
That really is the moon.
You cannot compare it to the description and say it is a let down, because it is real.
The description was misleading - it was not better than the real thing, and it possibly spoiled your appreciation of the beauty of what you were really looking at, because you were expecting something else.

Lucas' film is what ROTS REALLY is.
The novelization is just a novelization.
It's nothing.
Fluff.
Entertaining fluff.
But fluff.

 

"But not everything that is in the book has anything to do with GL's vision of SW, it has to do with Matt Stover's interpretation of GL's vision. "

Not true. Lucas line-edited the book. Also most of the book is based off of the original script which was still written by GL and dramatically cut for the final shooting script and even moreso for the final theatrical release.


"And I'm not particularly interested in that... "

That's just silly. You reject story elements that add depth and value and enjoyment simply because they didn't come from fat neck himself?

 

Thanks for your little diatribe on the PT, Jax.
Now maybe you'd like to take it over to the PT forum, as it seems to be slightly off topic in here.



Haven't read the book, and have no intention of doing so. The movie is way more than enough for me.


-JR

 

"But not everything that is in the book has anything to do with GL's vision of SW, it has to do with Matt Stover's interpretation of GL's vision."

Not true. Lucas line-edited the book. Also most of the book is based off of the original script which was still written by GL and dramatically cut for the final shooting script and even moreso for the final theatrical release.

Your basically saying the same thing as me.
The entire plot is based on GL's script.
Most of the dialogue and action was inspired by GL's script.
But a lot of it was pure Stover invention.
It has to be.
Lucas' script - however much was cut out - was infinately shorter than a novel-sized tome.

The novel was hundreds of pages of dense text longer.
If that all came from Lucas, he may as well of written the darn thing himself.
We know specifically which scenes and moments were dropped from that script.
It is the embelishment and padding which is Stover.

Don't get me wrong - I like the novel - but I don't see how you can even compare it to the actual film.

That's just silly. You reject story elements that add depth and value and enjoyment simply because they didn't come from fat neck himself?

No.
Just because less is more.

You seem to be telling me what you think I find more enjoyable.
I was simply saying you cannot compare the book to the film.
It's chalk and cheese.

I don't think these things that people mention add anything.
Not because I don't like them - as I said, I do like them - but the film explains itself perfectly well.
It's all in there.
You don't need to get inside Dooku's head and have it spoonfed to you why he is on the Invisible Hand, what he wants, and why he is doing what he is doing.
The film invites you to experience that for yourself - perhaps forming a slightly unique interpretation of these things to the next person.
That is when films are a real journey, when they don't patronise you with information.

The novel does come across as being like a shopping list in places.
It just spells everything out literally and deliberately, for the benefit of the teens it was aimed at.
But that's what these things do - I'm not knocking Stover or the book itself or anything.

 

So I officially started the book last night, and after 15 pages is pretty much sucks.

The one cardinal rule in writing a story is that you have to suck the reader in with your first page, actually the first paragraph sets the tone for the whole story. The first couple pages are pathetic. This whole HoloNet crap gets old.

I'm going to finish it for the sake of reading it, I did spend money on it afterall, but so far this is crap. They should have hired the guy who did TPM, it made me enjoy the movie a lot more than I actually did.

 

One way in which the novel is FAR better:

You don't have to watch or listen to Natalie Portman trying to act.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, was she or was she not nominated for a best supporting actress?

But I'll give you this, her performance in the three films was embarassing. Thank God for 'The Professional'.