MovieChat Forums > Congo (1995) Discussion > The book is NOT better, haha

The book is NOT better, haha

posted 17 years ago by gsl124
18 replies | jump to latest

"The book is better"
-is one of the biggest (and most annoying) movie cliches I hear all the time, but it does NOT apply to Congo.

I'm not saying the movie was absolutely amazing or anything, but I just read the book and now I actually prefer the movie.

The book is a bit outdated, which is understandable. But that does not make up for the ongoing hoakiness the book had with communicating back and forth between Africa and the USA. They can't even afford to send too many letters (like ABC) through the satellite but they can send video and sound files?

The book would often breeze over big action scenes. Like, oh yea there was an attack on the plane so everyone jumped out. Then 3 pages on the history of Zinj...The movie of course had more action, which is expected. But the book did not really have any character development. Amazingly, I think the movie had more which is often quite the opposite.

Karen was not going after her missing husband in the book. So that whole dynamic between her boss forcing her to go for the diamonds and her only wanting to find out about her husband was not there in the book. This was not a bad element of the movie, so I think the movie scores here.

The book did not have the Tim Curry or Peter's-friend characters. These two characters added more to the movie because they gave the gorillas people to kill! LOL (plus Tim Curry was comical, which the book had none of). So since the book basically just had Peter, Karen and Munro...nobody was killed except a few African porters they hired. Some may argue that adding those 2 characters simply for gorilla fodder is a cheesy, lame attempt to copy Alien, Jaws or Jurassic Park cause animals killing humans = entertainment. Well yea, that's true.

The only point i'll give to the book was the scene with the cannibals devouring that family. That was interesting and I wonder if they considered that scene for the movie.

[–] ajfedor7 17 years ago

and in the book.... amy the regular gorilla managed to scare away the advancing killer gorillas when peter falls into their midst. and after amy scares them away, peter tickles her for like 10 minutes. he tickled her for 10 minutes while at any minute he could have been pWnd by the bad gorillas. i thought that was downright retarded.

[–] Manicman8 17 years ago

I haven't seen this film version (the fact of some of the changes really put me off) but the book was great. YES it was Slow and all but that is pretty much Michael Crichton style. Its like Jussric Park.. the Film version is a complete load compared to the oringal book. If you want an Action story, why are you bothing with Crichton's work? You just seam to be looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place.

Manic Man
Http://www.TheEmeraldStarPost.co.uk
Http://www.TESP.co.uk

[–] amazon423 15 years ago

They were both duds as far as I was concerned. The movie seemed to edge out the book however.

[–] jaddjamar 15 years ago

Agreed, the movie was better. But the book Sphere was better than the movie lol.

Plotholes are like Bigfoot, people who claim to see them are just trying to stir things up.

[–] dkconklin 15 years ago

^^ It would be impossible for the book version of Sphere to be worse than the movie. That film was one of the biggest pieces of gorilla crap i've ever seen.

[–] Bernnard_Black 14 years ago

I thought the book was better, myself. The addition of the Curry character was just ridiculous. But, I prefer to read anyway, so I'm prejudiced that way. 'Bout the only movie I can think of that was genuinely better than the book was Jaws.

[–] Promontorium 11 years ago

You've blown my f-ing mind. I swear to god. Reading the OP, my first thought was "Sphere was definitely a crappy book the movie was probably a little better".

Why the hell did you even bring up Sphere only to say the book was better? Why Spehre? Why not Jurassic Park Sphere isn't remotely a famous book or film. Of all the books with films attached to them in the universe you choose Sphere as an example of the book being better? It's insane because it's so f-ing random yet I was also thinking of Sphere reading this, but Sphere SUCKED! You have to be kidding me. That book was god awful.

The only thing anyone who reads Sphere can say in its defense is "But the squid!".

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Promontorium 9 years ago

lolwut

I don't remember the part in Aliens where the protagonists found a time travelling god ball and could manifest objects from their thoughts involuntarily.

[–] Riding_With_The_Valkyries 13 years ago

1. The book explores theories regarding talking animals acting as ambassadors for mankind.

The movie: Oooh, a talking gorilla! Isn't she cute?

2. In the book, the grey gorillas can talk in their own language. The protagonists use this to communicate with them.

The movie: YEAHHH LAZAR!!

3. In the book, rival corporations go head to head to try and reach the city of Zinj.

The movie: Stop eating my seasame cake!

4. In the book, Ross is a ruthless corporate drone who will do anything to get her diamonds.

In the movie: Boo hoo my husband!

OK, so the only thing that the movie did better was the character of Munro.

If I wanted a lecture on the rights of man, I would have gone to bed with Martin Luther

[–] Angel_Buffy 12 years ago

I think I preferred the book in a lot of ways, but I gotta say, Ross blasting the satellite at the end of the movie to punish Travis, is a pretty awesome scene.

I did in a lot of ways prefer the book, since I felt it did the ‘traveling through the Congo’ scenes better. Not really the fault of the movie, but by nature a book is better equipped for that, and I thought it really added a lot. I also like how they stay for multiple nights near the ruined city, and must defend multiple times against the gorillas, and the feeling that they can't leave either because the gorillas won't let them.

But I enjoyed both a lot, and have to agree with you. Munro was *way* better in the film.

[–] velvetjoneslives 12 years ago

I like the book better just because the gorillas were so much more advanced. They used weapons to attack and showed real strategy, instead of mindlessly attacking. The one weakness of the book, and this is common in a lot of Crichton work, is he focus a lot on technology. That's cool for a brand new novel, but it tends to go out of date quickly. For example, in Congo he brags about a laptop computer with a whopping "128k". Yes, at the time that was impressive, but even a year or two later it was a joke. Similar plot line in Disclosure. The company was a take over target because they had invented double speed CD drives. Yes, they were cool when they came out, but within two months quad speeds were out, then six speed, etc.

[–] Promontorium 11 years ago

They used weapons to attack and showed real strategy

That's just off the charts stupid. I was laughing my ass off the whole time watching this again at how ludicrously intelligent they were portraying gorillas. Amy sitting in an airplane chair with a seat belt on drinking a fu$king martini. You have got to be kidding me with that bullsh!t.

[–] Degree7 10 years ago

You're talking about the movie, the other guy was referencing the book.

~ There is nothing more pathetic than an aging hipster.

[–] McPmpy 10 years ago

Joe. Don. Baker.

[–] Fallchildrenx 10 years ago

i thought it was weird that neither the book nor the movie had any real romantic element between any of the characters. i don't know if either really suffered from it, but i just fancied it strange. love both by the way.

[–] gss2 10 years ago

I picked the book up a few months ago, and I wasn't impressed either. They crossed King Kong, Ridley Scott's Alien, and maybe Jaws, with King Solomon's mines. The end result is not very good. I like gorillas and apes, so I was interested in the book. It soon became apparent how dated it was, not only in terms of technology but also in the assumption that an ape could learn human sign language. The killer gorilla thing doesn't really interest me. A hippo is one of the most dangerous animals in Africa, and is much meaner and more dangerous than a gorilla. However, it simply looks too fat and dumb to play well as a movie monster. Humans and chimpanzees are the real killer apes. Gorillas are mostly an intimidation show and are actually fairly docile.

The whole Solomon-Congo thing probably started with H. Ridder Haggard, and the book/movie could be considered a tribute to him. It's just a pulp novel, really. Not very original and something of a step down for Crichton.

[–] stephenmonachello 8 years ago

I didn't like either the book or the film.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2604794/