Don't look now, but the race is tightening up!

:rofl: I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've been called .a "nut job conspiracy theorist!"

I'm not interested in the three children's books nor 2001. Of the rest, I haven't read Phantom and shall vote for that. I'm most interested in Heart of Darkness which I've wanted to re-read for years; it's a book that has lingered in my mind. Not sure which of the others I'll vote for; I'm willing to re-read any of them. I'll have to listen, but it's one of the many, many attractions of classics that there are usually cheap options for audio books.

I'm obviously hoping for Conrad. Everyone will know that Coppola's Apocalypse Now is an updated version set during the Vietnam War and I see it's free on Amazon Prime Video, so I shall probably piggyback it onto Heart of Darkness if it wins.

I think Apocalypse Now was made by Coppola.

:smack: Of course you're right. Thanks!

The original release or Apocalypse Now Redux? I have the latter on DVD.

And in another film to book connection that may have inspired the nomination of Ben-Hur . . The recently released Hollywood remake has been panned by critics and been a failure at the box office.

September 2016 Book Club Vote
 

Interestingly there was no religious component whatsoever to the original (and unauthorized) version of the film. It was a short and straightforward adventure film.

Why there would have been a question about authorization if Wallace died in 1905 and the film was made in 1957?

I was thinking of the original release, with Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando.

This entire list (with the obvious exception of Hiroshima) are books that became classic film - except not including the Disney cartoon version of Peter Pam, which is racist, misogynistic and entirely stupid (those animal costumes, why?). But the Mary Martin television performance is well worth seeing, even if not technically a film, and so is Robin Williams's Hook. I haven't seen the 2003 film, but that's a little recent to have achieved classic status in any case.

The 1957 film was the second remake — it had been brought to the screen twice before. The first (unauthorized) version was in 1907. It was a one-reeler made on the cheap. The owners of the copyrights to Ben Hur sued, won a hefty settlement, and the case proved pivotal in ensuring that companies must secure film rights before filming an author's works. The second version was a big budget film put out by MGM in 1925 and it was quite a spectacle. The film used all kinds of film techniques that were state of the art at the time including miniaturization and false backdrops to provide the film's special effects.

Just for certain clarity Apocalypse Now Redux is what is generally called a directors cut version of the original. Pretty much the same film, but with some material that wound up on the editing room floor for the original added. If the Amazon broadcast is the original I'd be interested in seeing it. It's been a long time since I've seen the original.

I'm an idiot. Of course. I'm not covering myself with glory in this discussion. :o

Part of the problem with the list is too much violence and war.

I know! Particularly Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which has violence against children!

They ADDED footage to the original? Geez. I thought it could benefit from some editing. But as I have already admitted I wasn't a fan of the story.

I disagree.