MovieChat Forums > The Dogs of War (1981) Discussion > The book was a hundred times better.

The book was a hundred times better.

posted 16 years ago by MrPie7
22 replies | jump to latest

What a movie this could have been if it had only followed the excellent novel by Fredrick Forsythe. "The Day of the Jackal" and "The Odessa File", 2 of F.F.'s other novels were excellent, exciting, films BECAUSE the directors of these other films had the good sense NOT to re-write them. They were not best sellers because people didn't like the story! Besides the arrogance of trying to redo a master of plot and suspese like Forsythe, Hollywood drones also kill a film's profitability by ruining a great novel instead of fulfilling its' promise. And John Irving had the advantage of already seeing that the 2 previous films got excellent reviews AND box office. As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a maroon!"

[–] slokes 15 years ago

The book has its moments but is very flawed, especially with the sudden resolution. The final battle lasts only a couple of pages, and much of the business in-between is a rather hokey battle between "Cat" Shannon and a rival merc. A nice subplot about a dotty British widow who the business interests lean on for platinum mining rights, but Shannon's extended romance with the lead businessman's daughter just reeks of plot convenience. Shannon's more philosophical in the book, with some good lines, but the leanness of Walken's performance is, overall, an improvement.

In the movie, the business with Shannon reconning Zangara and meeting up with the British journalist is an improvement over the book's storyline, which is fixed on the actual logistics to a fault. I enjoyed both somewhat, but they are weak sisters to the first two Forsyth novels and their filmic adaptations, "The Day Of The Jackal" (best novel, best movie) and "The Odessa File" (solid book, fair adaptation).

[–] Unicorn-9 15 years ago

"The final battle lasts only a couple of pages"

The thing is, the book is as much about the battle as 'The Maltese Falcon' is about a bird statue. The battle is a McGuffin like the Falcon, the real story is about how the mercenary attack is set up, not about what happens when they get there.

Which is precisely why I can understand the changes they made for the movie; they really had to make the battle a larger part of the story and the organisation less in order to appeal to a big market. Most people wouldn't sit through a three hour movie about mercenary logistics followed by ten minutes of fighting, which is about the minimum you could turn the book into if you wanted to remain faithful to it.

Personally I like the movie and the book, but for different reasons. I couldn't say that either is objectively better than the other, because they're substantially different retellings of the same basic story; and both work within the limits they set for themselves.

[–] slokes 15 years ago

I take your point about "The Maltese Falcon" analogy. I actually felt let down by the movie "Falcon" because of how much of a MacGuffin the Falcon wound up being there. Though I think the characterization in that film is much sharper, it is ultimately, like "Dogs", a character-driven story, not a plot-driven one. It's just that the characters we meet in "Dogs" the book, except Shannon to a small degree, are utterly cardboard and unengaging. Shannon does come off much better in the movie, much of the reason I prefer it to the book.

I was wrong, by the way, to say the final battle lasts only a couple of pages. It runs a bit longer than that, though it is brief and you are right that it is not as much the purpose of the book as the events leading up to it. I think I found its focus on logistics too painstaking for my taste.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

I haven't read the book, but I agree with a lot of this post.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

[–] Modpuz 15 years ago

Concerning the movie versions I liked The Day of the Jackal the best, followed by The Odessa File and then The Dogs of War.
For the novels, I read The Dogs of War first and really liked it. I didn't think I would find too many books more enjoyable than it and then I read The Day of the Jackal and was blown away. I read The Odessa File a number of years after the other two and enjoyed that very much as well.

[–] paimanish 15 years ago

My preference would be

Books:
1) The day of the Jackal
2) The Fourth Protocol
3) The Odessa File
4) The Dogs of War

Movies:
1) The day of the Jackal
2) The Odessa File
3) The Fourth Protocol
4) The Dogs of War

[–] sneakguest 15 years ago

You are wrong, the book is 1000 time s better

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

High Five!

[–] [deleted] a year ago

So you did not understand both. Too bad. Gone with you!

[–] blacknyellowsquid 14 years ago

Wheeww I completely disagree but I think it's a matter of taste. I watched this movie for Christopher Walken and then later figured I'd give the book a whorl for a movie vs. book type thing. And I really hated the book. Pretty much everything I liked in the movie, mostly the character-development of Jamie Shannon, was completely non-existent in the book. He just seemed like a one dimensional annoying kinda guy, and the book focused 10x more on the more superficial details like barrels of oil to hide guns etc ad infinitum...

Again, my personal taste I'm sure. This is pretty much the only instance I can think of where I actually prefer 'the movie' over 'the book.' Before this whole Dogs of War thang, I would defend the statement 'the book is always better!' This changed my attitude, lol. But again...that's just me...

[–] MrPie7 14 years ago

Like "Day of the Jackel" and "The Odessa File", The book gives meticulous "insider" information that Forsythe picked up while being a journalist. How things are smuggled, how important documents are faked or gotten under phony pretenses. It's this richness of detail that makes Forsythe's and other "caper" stories work.In the movie everthing is somehow magically gotten (guns, troops, papers, equipment etc) and also the other mercenaries come off as mere hired guns-which they were NOT. Their loyalty had to be EARNED, not bought.

The reason there is no character development in the novel is that Cat's character is already set. He refuses to allow others to pick whom he must kill, or what to die over. He saw too many of his fellow Tommies killed on Cyprus or in Kenya fighting to protect the economic interests of the rich. Shannon was not a touchy/feeley kind of man. A mercenary with too much sensitivity would soon be a DEAD mercenary. He should be a man of principle, not sentiment. Because the director ignored these points, the movie flopped; unlike "Jackel" and "Odessa" which were commercial and CRITICAL successes.

[–] blacknyellowsquid 14 years ago

Yeah I see your point. I guess I just went in to it ass-backwards. Because I watched the movie and the element I liked was the movie's character development of Jamie Shannon...which was not existent in the book. And the book had all the details about the guns etc. and Cat was more shallow (even though you have a good reason why). So, you know. I guess the movie was an apple and the book was an orange. Which would anger a 'purist' of the book. I know what that's like, usually I'm the other way around (all purist about the original and whatnot). But this time it was flip-flopped. Ah well.

[–] grendelkhan 13 years ago

As far as re-writing Forsythe, he wrote Fourth Protocol and even Michael Caine has said he told him a lot of the Russian dialogue doesn't work as well on the screen. It wasn't helped by the conceit of using Americans as the Russians (aside from Brosnan), who didn't handle the patronimic stuff well. I think European actors would have been better at that.

The book is better, but the planning stages are probably a bit too long. The novel isn't as tightly written and paced as Day and ODESSA.

[–] nephihaha 13 years ago

Actually I preferred this to the book in some ways, because Forsyth seems to have a nasty racist streak to his book.

I preferred "Jackal", "Odessa" and the "Protocol" as books myself. Forsyth's recent novels are dreadful.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] Prismark10 12 years ago

The book probably was better but Forsyth novels are not always easy to adapt for the screen.

Its that man again!!

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

In the book, contempt is expressed for the two indigenous ethnic groups in Zangaro, and it is stated that African refugees from elsewhere do most of the work and effectively will run the place after Kimba is overthrown. In reality, I doubt whether this would be a stable situation for long.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] marktayloruk (2378) a year ago

It told the truth about the world's worst dictatorship.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 2 years ago

Should have stuck to.the book. I even tried casting it.

[–] Callahan7 (904) a year ago

You tried casting this film?

Christopher Walken was good imo.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) a year ago

1980
Cat Shannon Edward Fox
Kurt Semmler Horst Janson
Sir James Manson David Niven
Julie Manson Madeleine Smith
Martin Thorpe Anthony Valentine
Simon Endean Patrick Mower

[–] ShogunofYonkers (71676) a year ago

I enjoyed the novel and thought the movie was great. Walken was terrific as always.

[–] Callahan7 (904) a year ago

Shannon made a mistake by underestimating his driver. He thought he was a local who could not speak or understand English.

He gets annoyed with the driver and says something like "In my jungle you'd just be another asshole."

This tipped off the driver he was not an ornithologist who was there to photograph exotic birds. He informed his superiors.

This error blew Shannon's cover and caused him to be beaten severely and nearly killed. Sometimes even small lapses in judgment can have devastating consequences.

It was funny when the driver gives him his passport at the airport. "You will need your passport. Asshole. Ha ha ha ha."