Very loosely based . . .

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205537/?ref_=sr_1

Directed by Kenneth Brannagh, must watch

I'll be seeing it in the theatre. This has been a good year for Chris Pine. Leading roles in two major films.

Why not Without Remorse?
Oh well, still glad to see a Clancy movie being made again.

I don't even see why it's Jack Ryan. It's not a novel adaptation, it's not a Clancy story.

I'm sorry to say Jack Ryan as a character was never as interesting as James Bond or Jason Bourne or many other characters who have lived beyond the creator's works. And I think frankly casting Chris Pine is overdoing it. He's too competent.



The Jedi Master

I guess, it's in the spirit of Jack Ryan (again, loosely), but it certainly doesn't seem to be in the Ryan universe. On the other hand, the cast and director make me want to give it a chance.

Speaking of the Bourne movies, now that I am almost finished reading the three novels from which the titles came, I find myself loosening up a lot from when I used to expect maximum fidelity from film adaptations of novels. I just do a little research first so I know what to expect in terms of adaptation fidelity. The Bourne novels and movies are so different as to be barely related in movies two and three, but since I read the novels after seeing the movies I found myself feeling as if I was getting twice the entertainment value because there were no spoilers!

Can anyone think of a film adaptation that was identical to the book it was based on?

Paganini was a composer.

Anyway, back to identical film adaptations . . . hmmmm, just how strictly are we speaking?

Good question. Let's just say a film that didn't have any characters or major plot points that were not in the book.

Last Man on Earth was pretty close to I Am Legend. They changed his job, but otherwise very close.
Fellowship of the Ring was plucked from my memory as a kid, but I'm sure the Ring Wraiths will have a field day pointing out how wrong I am.
2001, with the exception of Jupiter and Saturn, but of course that's by design due the book and movie being released together.

IMO, it's very impressive when a book-movie is a major re-write but still ends up being a really good movie.
Again, I Am Legend (Will Smith) has almost nothing in common with the book, but I love the movie.
Clear and Present Danger is such a re-write it might as well have another title, but I still love both the book and the movie. The book is better, but the movie even with it's Ryan-ified re-write is still very good.

Concerning 2001, the way Arthur C. Clarke describes what Bowman sees during his pod journey to the monolith is very different from the way Kubrick showed it on film. But yes, the movie is largely faithful to the book.

"Jack Ryan, as a young covert CIA analyst,
uncovers a Russian plot to crash the U.S. economy
with a terrorist attack."

Ah i love those clich�s.

What about Jack Ryan, as a young covert CIA analyst, eavesdrops on his own family, finds out some stranger screws his own wife, and finds out the NSA does it to the whole USA ?

That to me should have been the next movie made. I watched the trailer, not overly impressed.

True, and the biggest short coming of the movie. I think they were going for something much less understandable in the movie as a sign of the time it was made. I'd have rather they showed us the train station/router described in the book.

The Outlaw Jose Wales was supposed to be very closely matched between novel and script, but I didn't read the book and am taking it on the word of a friend who was familiar with both.

The problem with adapting any of the Jack Ryan books is they they are old. They are anicent. They deal with something that was over before 50% of movie audiences was born. It's simple, the Cold War is not an interesting setting for Generation X.

Which is why movies like the Bourne series have been moved into the present. So they need to do the same with Jack Ryan (they *could* have used Jack Ryan Jr, but alas).

MadDog makes a great point. Heck, even Desert Storm is considered to be old history by a large portion of current audiences.

Good Lord, man, people were reading books on paper back then.

It's like it was a different millennium.

Darn, if they don't make a movie about Debt of Honor I'll make it myself lol.

As a fan of the books I don't think it could have been done much better for a wide audience to get the story. They did change a lot in the story but again for the benefit of a movie going audience. A lot of the major characters in the movies were really played lip service in the books.

As for the Ryan movie I'm mixed on it theres so much book material to play with without having to make an original story. And I want to see No Remorse made into a movie but I'd hate to see it brought into a modern setting as the story sits so well in the Vietnam era. Problem with that is the larger movie going audience won't get that setting.