MovieChat Forums > The Prince of Tides (1991) Discussion > Really pales in comparison to the book.

Really pales in comparison to the book.


WHAT is it about the 90s that made it impossible for us to make movies based off books? The Indian and the Cupboard and Stuart Little were also inadequate compared to their respective literature. There are more, but I can't think of them just yet. The movie was like the book in fast-forward, with no focus on Luke or (oddly) Savannah. They oversiplified her psychosis and showed very little of her in the flashbacks. Streisand needed to stop being so introspective and react a little more. Nolte was great when he wasn't yelling. And why did the screw with the Callanwold story? It was so much more terrifying and captivating in the book.

reply

I agree, but as a script writer, (Not of this movie. I do plays) I saw the possibilites of four different movies in the book not repeating any material. There was a ton of material, and you only have about 90 t0 120 minutes. My big dissapoint ment is as yours. The rape scean kind of pissed me off. Why make Tom the wimp in the movie when he wasn't in the book? I never understood that one. I also thought that there was a lot missing when it came to telling about the family dinamics. I'm glad that I watched the movie first. If I had read the book first I would have hated the movie.

_________________________________________
Is it time for my medication or yours?

reply

the wimp? how tactful and insightful...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm a huge Pat Conroy fan who can't put down any of his books, and I couldn't even finish this movie. True, it is difficult to condense a book down into two hours of film, but capturing and condensing the essence of the book is the screenwriters' art. I noted with interest that it was Conroy himself who wrote the screenplay - maybe he should stick to novels and let professional screenwriters make the conversion to film. Additionally, the acting was absolutely atrocious. I could cast this movie better in my sleep. I could see Nick Nolte as a truck driver, but not an English teacher. His attempt at a southern accent completely destroyed Tom's character. Even worse was Barbara Streisand - what happened to the beautiful, sexy, intelligent psychiatrist from the novel? Streisand needs to be banned from the screen forever unless she's playing an obnoxious, nasally stereotypical Jewish mother (read: Meet the Fockers). Lowenstein is supposed to be a sex symbol in the book, and I would rather have intercourse with a cheese grater than Streisand. Pat, stick to novels, and leave the screenwriting to the professionals. Whoever cast this movie, find another line of work.

reply

ROTFL--Cheese. :)

I saw the novel's Lowenstein differently. She seemed frumpy and nagging in the book, always calling Tom's name in every sentence. "What do you think, Tom?" "Oh, I see, Tom." "Tell me about your mother, Tom." @@ The description of her seemed very incongrous with Bab's film character. That's the only way I like the movie better, actually. In all other respects, the book is far superior to the film.

I still say that Conroy was as true to his novel as he could be given the limitations of commercial films. I think had it been made as an "art" film, we'd have seen a different screen play.

reply

austinc3172,Just curious as to your casting experience? your screenplay experience? your directing experience? If your really successful at any of these I doubt you have time to be posting here. What a sad little wannabee.

reply

In all honesty, there was no real way to do justice to Pat Conroy's novel. I think Streisand did the best that was possible. Despite the film's obvious failings, it is still a wonderful film and a wonderful tribute to Pat's novel.

By the way, it's still my favorite novel of all time...and I have a signed first edition. Woot!!

"You don't want my opinion...you just want me to agree with you."

reply