The original book was a right wing crank's rant against hippies and youth culture, drug use, casual sex, and hedonism. It was powerful in its weird way, but it gave a full picture of a world where youth must rule. It even described Antarctica, Mars, and under the sea.
The film reduced it to a mall made to look like a single city. They not only threw out almost all the story. They threw out all logic. Ballard, the aged leader of a rebel movement, becomes a senile old man played by Ustinov.
How was the old man able to live in the wild? How could Jessica and Logan live in the wild for months when they were sheltered city people? Where were the other people in the wild? And how silly is it when the city and the computer collapse just because they were told there's no Sanctuary?
In the book an old Mars colony is Sanctuary. It ends with the rebellion continuing. Why did they even bother to make this film if they ignored everything good in the book?
The film reduced it to a mall made to look like a single city. They not only threw out almost all the story. They threw out all logic. Ballard, the aged leader of a rebel movement, becomes a senile old man played by Ustinov.
How was the old man able to live in the wild? How could Jessica and Logan live in the wild for months when they were sheltered city people? Where were the other people in the wild? And how silly is it when the city and the computer collapse just because they were told there's no Sanctuary?
In the book an old Mars colony is Sanctuary. It ends with the rebellion continuing. Why did they even bother to make this film if they ignored everything good in the book?