MovieChat Forums > Bug (1975) Discussion > Do NOT read the book (The Hephaestus Pla...

Do NOT read the book (The Hephaestus Plague ) but the cover is awesome

posted 13 years ago by edwstraker
6 replies | jump to latest

Bug is one of those movies that is infinitely better than the book (The Hephaestus Plague). In the book, many of the plot details depend on the author's knowledge of microbiology particularly bacterial biology. As a microbiologist, I can tell you Thomas Page had no idea what he was talking about so the book's plotting is not remotely credible. The filmmakers OTOH recognized (I guess) Mr. Page’s inspired idea yet wisely dispensed with his lack of microbiological knowledge focusing on other more macroscopic aspects of the story. I can hardly believe I'm giving this compliment to the filmmakers because the film is produced by William Castle but I have to. (OK I loved Tingler and the underrated Jennot Szwarc directed Bug).

Getting back to the book, I got to about p. 80 in the paperback and had to stop reading it because each additional page made me cringe and made methink less of the film which was a nice, tight effort on the part of all involved. I'm going to watch the film tonight to purge myself of Mr. Page's book.

Just so this doesn't seem like a rant from a poster with no life, one thing I really liked about the book was the entomological details. But I am now questioning even this. As I microbiologist, I could see Mr. Page's lack of microbiological knowledge. I'm hoping Mr. Page's knowledge about entomology was not as bad as his knowledge of microbiology otherwise the first pages of his book that kept me going until p. 80 were a complete waste of my time. The "About the Author" credits in his book don't make me feel any better...an English major!

One thing I can say about the paperback book, it has awesome cover art. Art that is much better than the movie poster for Bug.

[–] Dr Wily 11 years ago

I just finished reading the book about a week or 2 ago.

The author's knowledge of entomology is probably on par with his of microbiology. I'm not an entomologist, but, I do know that there were some instances where the author referred to insect organs by their mammalian names. Most likely so the reader can relate to the function of the organs, but they were incorrectly named.

I agree that the movie adaptation is better than its source material. Which is kind of odd in that Thomas Page co-wrote the script with William Castle, if my memory serves me correctly.

[–] graphics-18 9 years ago

THANK YOU. I wouldn't be caught dead reading a book that identifies insect organs by their mammalian names.

If I am found dead next to such a book, please assume I was framed.

[–] heyteegs (1207) 5 years ago

hahaha!

[–] gari_taylor-879-847683 11 years ago

I have just watched this film again (no U.K DVD release so it was an Italian import).
The above comments have just saved me a few pound on buying the book!
However I understand that the book continues in narrative after where the film closed.What exactly happens?

[–] Dr Wily 9 years ago

If I remember correctly, the narrative continues talking about Parmenter's disappearance. It seems he just walked into a wave of the bugs and it implies they devoured him. Then, the bugs went underground and also disappeared.

However, it's been like 2 years since I read it.

As for saving money, try and do what I did. :) I got the book through my local library's interlibrary loan program. I don't know if they have such a thing in the UK, but in the US, libraries cooperate by loaning older material to each other. I think it's only books, so you can't get CD's, DVD's, etc.

[–] Rinn13 (167) 2 years ago

If the movie is "infinitely better" than the book, my god, the book must be EXTREME hot garbage. Because the movie is pretty fucking bad.