MovieChat Forums > Ice Station Zebra (1968) Discussion > Don't watch if you read the book!

Don't watch if you read the book!

posted 18 years ago by wedgar
13 replies | jump to latest

I happened to read the book before I saw the movie. The book is quite easily one of the 3 best books Alistair MacLean ever wrote; it was superb. What a huge disappointment it then was when I saw the movie. I was actually pretty excited to watch the movie, but was left with a pit in my stomach. The movie started off well, was close to the book and then halfway through they spoilt it by changing the whole story (when I say change, I mean a major change). Looks like they did it to shorten the length of the movie. They should do it properly in a mini-series. If you want to know what I mean, do yourself a favour and read the book; you won't be disappointed. If you have read the book, but not seen the movie, don't go near it.

[–] bdunlap-2 18 years ago

I agree. I think a mini-series would be able to play out the narrative a bit more and follow the book more closely. I always felt the movie's ending was rushed just to wrap it up.

I have watched this movie a couple of times and although it is not a bad movie, it is not a great movie either.

I thought they spent too much time on the sub getting to the Arctic and once they were there everything just fell into place with a nice tidy ending in the last half-hour.

The movie's story never came alive for me.

I have never read the book on which this movie was based. I don’t know how closely the film follows the book. However, from reading various plot summaries the book’s plot is more like a murder mystery with Cold War overtones. Who is the spy at the station and who is the saboteur on the sub? Also, a lot of the character’s motivations seemed more personal than "keeping the world safe for democracy" or loyalty to one’s homeland like it was portrayed in the movie.

=If there was ever going to be a remake, I would do it as a television mini-series and played out over two or three nights. I think that would give the various characters room to develop and more could be done with the different characters and so on. It would give someone the chance to act like a detective, both on the sub and at the station, put the pieces together and solve the thing by the end.

I would keep the story a Cold War thriller. I have always liked the time period.

[–] wedgar 18 years ago

The film follows the book fairly closely until about half way through.

You are correct about the books plot. It actually keeps you guessing until the very end regarding the saboteur. The book actually ends back on the sub after they have left Ice Station Zebra.

If you like to read, do yourself a favour and read the book, you won't be disappointed. The 1st 2/3 chapters drag on bit (like a typical MacLean novel), but once it gets going you're hooked.

[–] DangerMan6 17 years ago

MacLean's books are always better than their movies. Only The Guns of Navarone comes close.

[–] Eric-62-2 17 years ago

I too found the movie a major let-down after reading the book first and enjoying it's Agatha Christie style air of mystery regarding just who the saboteur at Ice Station Zebra was. And the ending was both brilliant and funny, giving us the kind of clear-cut ending in favor of the good guys and not the godawful stalemated moral-equivalence doctrine ending the film decided to give us instead.

[–] perseus71 17 years ago

You'd be interested to know that Maclean wrote the Screenplay of Where Eagles Dare first. This was on request from Burton who wanted to do a WW2 movie for his son.

The novel actually came out later after the movie. So Maclean made some character changes to keep the novel interesting. Hence the movie and the Novel are equally good.

[–] Koosh_King01 12 years ago

The novel of Where Eagles Dare was published in 1967, a year before the film came out.

"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?"

[–] charismaseasons 10 years ago

That's because it takes longer to produce a movie than it does to publish a book. He indeed did write it as a screenplay first and then the novel.

[–] ovemunk 16 years ago

Quite agree. This is a horrible movie as most of McLeans films. I can accept "The Guns of Navarone" allthough they changed a lot (partisans becoming girls - Miller becoming a moralizing anti-war type - etc.) And "Where Eagles Dare" is excellent bacause he wrote the screenplay first and then the book but the rest of the films are horrible. The worst probably being "Force 10 from Navarone"

[–] leforcat 16 years ago

It's funny. I haven't read the book - mostly because after reading some of McLeans books I found them not very good and full of dumb details. As far as the film - it's not the greatest film ever made, but I like it and I enjoy it every time I see it. I guess the plot was changed because images work differently than text and a story that seems fascinating in a book may be unsuited to tell on film. It happens all the time.
What you guys who always complain about films not following the books closely enough seems to fail to understand is that there's NO obligation for the film makers to do it. They don't have to. What they have to is TO ENTERTAIN. And in order to do so they're free to make whatever changes they feel like.
So read books and see films and enjoy both, but don't demand they follow each other because it makes little sense.

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

[–] Nov633 16 years ago

Well, I tend to disagree with your assertion that they have "no obligation" to stay faithful to the book. You don't want to follow the novel? Fine. But be honest about it. Using the exactly same name as the novel for your movie implies a basic similarity. Of course nobody expects it to follow it in all details; but such a major shift from the original as in the case of Zebra entitles a reader/viewer to feel "cheated" and disappointed. The advertisements need to emphasize that such major diversions from the original exist in order to let viewers know what to expect, though to do so without too much of a spoiler would indeed be challenging.

But hey, this is what this discussion forum is all about. People share their knowledge and opinions. Now that I read how the movie is different than the book, I can make an informed decision. So if my sole interest in it results from the terrific reading experience I had with the book, as it is in my case, I'll know to avoid the movie. If, on the other hand, I don't care about MacLean or about books in general, I'd ignore this entire thread and decide whether to watch the movie on its own merits.

[–] leforcat 16 years ago

You may have a point about discussions, and also about the titel obliging to something. Still, you don't HAVE to follow that if you, as an artist, feel that one or more parts of the narrative or anything else doesn't fit the FILM format, the FILM's way of communicating, which is entirely different from written words. And you only feel cheated if you've read the book, mind you, AND if you allow yourself to be bound by it. And if so, why see the film at all? :-)

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

[–] red_phenix 13 years ago

The book was great, kept me turning the pages. The film on the other hand, was pretty flat and lacked any real suspense. The derivation from the plot left it open to plotholes too. Never mind that the person in the film I suspect straight off as being the saboteur was the saboteur...

[–] TaxPayer99 9 years ago

Do you think you would you have been as upset had you watched the movie first and then read the book.