Got ot disagree about the novel BTPA - I have read it, and while it read well enough (tho not a patch on the original novel) I thought it was full of cliches (Rogo's buddy buddy relationship with Jason) and especially hated the fact taht it killed off characters who had survived the original film. IIRC correctly, both Manny and James Martin were killed: unforgiveable, as it destroyed Martin's relationship with Nonnie and made a mockery of Manny's promise to Belle (to give her necklace to their grandson). I also think that the fact that the action mainly stayed in and around the boilerroom (necessary because most of the ship was flooded in the original) wouldn't have worked well on screen. Basically, I think that both the movie and novel versions of BTPA were disappointing - however, I prefer the movie because at least it doesn't actively try and spoil/undermine some of the events of the original film. Really, it can be viewed as a (misguided) film that doesn't ruin your enjoyment of the original, whereas the book comes close to doing just that.
Yes, I shall certainly choose revolutionary France for my holiday again next year.
reply
share
Eric-62-2
8 years ago
Martin wasn't killed in the sequel novel but you are right that what the novel did to Martin and Manny (who does die) subverts their characters from the film completely. Nonnie (along with Susan and Robin) are dismissed in one throwaway line at the start as "sleeping in the back" of the helicopter. The idea that Martin would go back just for the thrill of more excitement is absurd on its face (he figures that as long as Rogo is going back, he's got to go too). Manny's reason is even more ridiculous.
That said, there was a comfort zone with the book that the film didn't have because at least there were these familiar characters and there was a good moment when Rogo runs into the Nurse. The book describes how the doctor had opened a bulkhead foolishly in the journey forward to the bow and the nurse was the only survivor of the group. When she sees Rogo she asks about his wife and remembers how seasick she was. It was one of the few times that Gallico managed to capture the true sound of the film in the book.
In fairness to Gallico, the fact that he even wrote the novel in the first place took a lot of chutzpah on his part, because in effect he was being forced to shoehorn someone else's interpretation of his work into a story knowing full well that the real reason for the book was to give Irwin a property to make into a sequel movie. Most authors who see their works made into films and then changed would have felt insulted by the idea. But Gallico, who was in his 70s by then (he died more than two years before the film came out) probably figured it was easy money worth pursuing. So I'm not surprised that Gallico didn't really "get" the film's characters because they weren't really his characters to begin with.
reply
share