Check this out:

http://www.cinescape.com/indexnew.html


Sum of All' Changes?
Helmer Phillip Noyce has gone public as to why the next Jack Ryan film; which may star Harrison Ford; Sum of All Fears, has been delayed. While talking to Cinescape contributor and syndicated columnist Cindy Pearlman, Noyce revealed what intrigued him about the story, "The new movie has a fundamentally compelling idea, which is an atomic bomb exploding in a major American city. I think the idea is compelling because unfortunately it's going to happen someday. At least that's what I believe."

Okay, so what's the problem? Noyce explains, "In the book, it's predictably a combination of Arabs and disaffected American Native Indians. Good Clancy bad guys. A coalition of the left." Or, a politically incorrect menace. Noyce then reveals his plans for the script saying, "We are examining
changing the bad guys into members of the extreme right wing in America."

I think the extreme right wing in America is a much more believable (not to mention more frightening) bad guy. I'd go for it.

". . .combination of Arabs and disaffected American Native Indians. Good Clancy bad guys. A coalition of the left.' "

???

I don't really see how Arabs make up part of a coalition of the left (or right, for that matter). From my memories of the book, the one (1) American Indian character is, like all of Clancy's domestic terrorists before _Rainbow Six_, an incompetant terrorist, who would have been no problem were he not duped, used, and killed by the typical nasty foreign terrorists (very like _Patriot Games_, if not as sympathetic as the domestic terrorists in that book, who aren't even ex-cons).

So, what group should we pick for the mad bombers? Americans do not like the Arab types, so I feel it will be them again. Yes, there are bunch of Muslem types out there that would like to put on the United States. "Right-wingers" - The types that blew up the federal builing in OK City maybe, but that also has been done. "Left-wingers" - most likely have an atomic reactor melt down unless it is a splinter group from Greenpeace that wants the USA to blow up. Remember the book had the bomb fizzle and in the book Executive Orders a pair of right-wingers were driving to D.C. with a cement truck loaded to blow (again they were bunch of turkeys).

Well, the baddies in SoaF were Arabs.

Also, the bomb didn't fully fizzle. The fission bomb did go off, but didn't trigger the full fusion bomb explosion the way it was supposed to.

Because this movie has been confirmed and is no longer a rumour, I've moved it out of The Grapevine and put it here. Ben Affleck apparently is going to play Jack Ryan. While I'm skeptical about this, Affleck IS a good actor, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

The bad guys in this one will be Tim McVaigh style right-wingers. In the book they were Arab, but Paramount doesn't want a repeat of the PR nightmare that happened with The Seige, even though the whole point of that movie was that you can't treat all Arabs like terrorists just because a few of them are.

Why are they still bothering to call it The Sum of All Fears, then? Why not just ditch the Clancy licence and have Ben Affleck as a two-fisted CIA hero, trying to personally apprehend the cliched militiamen who nuked Anywheresville, Anystate, culminating in a tense one-on-one karate battle with the stock, religion/Shakespeare/recreational drug-crazed, self-styled militia General in a nuclear missile silo on the brink of starting WWIII?
No, wait, that's what they're going to do with it anyway. Except Mr. CIA Hero will be called "Jack Ryan", despite bearing no resemblance to the novel's character of the same name.
Darn, I'm cynical after seeing what they did to Clear and Present Danger, but what's the point in making a film on a book series if you have such little respect for either the books or the author?

In a word, name recognition. Also Tom Clancy has seen some of the footage from the movie and is thinking about writing a novel about young Jack Ryan so that they can make it into a movie and Afleck can star in it.

Lets not forget that the rights to Clancy's books are owned by Jack Ryan Enterprises, which is owned by Clancy; so it's not like his publisher is going around him to sell to Hollywood without his input.

BTW what did you find wrong with Clear & Presant Danger, I think it was a fine movie. Granted it cut out lots of the book, but the only way to keep everything from the book would have been to make a 6 hour (at least) mini-series.

trying to personally apprehend the cliched militiamen

Cliched militiamen? As opposed to what clancy's Cliched Arab Terrorists. Now I have no problem with making movie terrorists Arab, any more than I have a problem with making them Irish, or American; but how many movies can you name with American Right-wing terrorists, nothing's comming to my mind. How many can you name with Arab terrorists (Executive Decision, The Delta Force, True Lies) off of the top of my head.

Now I have no problem with making movie terrorists Arab, any more than I
have a problem with making them Irish, or American; but how many movies
can you name with American Right-wing terrorists, nothing's comming to my
mind.


I was thinking of The Patriot, starring Steven Seagal. If you haven't seen it, really, don't bother. It was shockingly poor, yet they did pretty much everything they could do with the whole "militia as villians" scene. Man, it was cliched. Also, there was Kevin Costner's The Postman, which kinda qualifies, and militia villians have been depicted in The X-files a few times.
The trouble with milita as villains are that they interview real militiamen on the TV every day, and familiarity breeds contempt. You know what they believe, what their aims are and (most of the time) what misreading of the US Constitution they base all that on. You may even find them faintly laughable, and if you do you won't find them convincing big-screen villains.
The terrorists in TSoAF weren't that cliched; they were a combination of tragically lost souls and technical and organisational geniuses. But it's probably not PC to have non-white people in movies having human emotions like hatred and a capacity for vengeance.
My problem with Clear and Present Danger wasn't what they left out, but how they altered the story to make it a conventional action thriller. The book was really quite subtle, more of a crime story involving the government than a out-and-out all-action deal. The film vaguely sticks with the book right up until the last reel, where all hell breaks loose and we're suddenly watching Die Hard IV.
In the novel, Ryan's a superlative CIA administrator forced into real combat by the plot; his role in the climax is manning a gun on a military helicopter flying into a war zone. He's utterly terrified, but he gets the job done because he has to. He's a backroom-boy, then, but one with guts.
On the other hand, Harrison Ford's character buys a helicopter with his CIA card, goes bravely running into the Evil Drug Lord's camp, effortlessly dodging bullets before confronting the head druggie face to face.
Subtlety, then. Not many people expect it of Clancy, but it's definately there, and it's pretty much absent from the film. They changed interesting characters into stereotypes; In the book, Mr Clark's a dedicated family man/ruthless CIA assassin; in the film, he's a stock spook/crazyman for hire. In the book, Ritter's a dedicated, veteran intelligence agent who genuinely dislikes younger up-and-comer Ryan; in the film, he's a slimy whizz-kid and enemy of the older Ryan, out to cover his illegal operations at all cost. In the novel, the drug lord is an evil, conceited thug; in the film, he's a conceited thug who, in his last scene, just happens to have a sense of honour. Never seen that anywhere before.
The key scene in both is the assassination of the FBI chief; in the book, it spurs his friend the President into rash and illegal action; this happens in the film also, except thay had to have Ryan present and have his friend killed in the blast to (sigh) give him a personal reason to track down the bad guys.
I just don't think it was that good an adaption, that's all.

I just don't think it was that good an adaption, that's all.

Right. The movie isn't even close. The whole point of the book is foreshadowed in the conference when FBI Director Jacobs advises the President to terminate the operation. He says, "I can do more with police work" or something like that. The point isn't about a sinister government plot: it's about what happens when a LEGAL operation ventures into the ILLEGAL because of people losing control of their emotions.

The movie is about a sinister plot that's illegal from Day One.

Saw it tonight. LIKED it A LOT! Very thrilling, very shocking plot. It certainly violated an important rule or two in bomb-related thrillers.

NITS:
Spoiler Warning. The following nits refer to important plot points in the movie.
One thing I notice whenever a helicopter goes down in a movie is that the minute one of its blades even touches the ground, the whole thiing explodes into a fireball, and the pilot is never able to save the copter or make an emergency landing. The Last Castle is the most recent example I am reminded of. I'm curious as to whether this is accurate, but since I have no knowledge of helicopter flight, have no way to confirm it. Lo, and behold, Jack's copter is smacked around by the shockwave of the bomb blast in the movie, and although it crashed and its blades impact the ground, (I was wondering how he'd survive this, given that copters ALWAYS explode when they crash in movies), it DOESN'T explode. It rolls over, and Jack suffers just modest injuries!

During the attacks in the movie, A Russian commander tells a group of Russian pilots that an American bomb has gone off in Russia in retaliation for the attack on American soil. The viewer doesn't see this, and so Russian jets attack an American aircraft carrier. We then see the Russian Presdient, who apparently doesn't know of either the U.S. attack or of any Russian air assault on the carrier. But the movie never makes clear: Was there actually a U.S. bomb attack? And how did the terrorists get that Russian air commander guy to think there was, and launch an attack that his President didn't know? We're never told, nor do we see this Russian commander again? There are allusions by the U.S. President's staff to the Russian President's inability to "control his military." Was the Russian air commander a rogue? This wasn't made clear to me.

Couple of things: I was surprised at the ending to what happened to Olsen. Think about it: After what happened, wouldn't the American public, when told who was behind the attacks, want to have this guy arrested and tried and executed/jailed in the U.S.? And I don't believe that they didn't tell the public who was behind it, since it would mean that The Russian President, who was originally thought to be behind them, would be hated thereafter by the U.S. people, and since the President was on good terms with him at the end of the film, that would in turn endanger his approval rating and chances for reelection, or the election of his V.P.

Saw this movie tonight. Not too bad except for the whole jack ryan neophyte thing. but otherwise quite cool. Being in the cell phone industry I thought it was funny how after the bomb goes off everybody is still talking on their cell phones. Especially since cabot is using a samsung 8500 and those things can't hold a signal on a good day 50 feet from a tower. But anyhow not only if the EMP didn't blast the phone but most of the towers in that area would be so much scrap metal so those things should be just paperweights. A trailer that was attached to Sum for a movie thought might be funny was the Steve Irwin Crocidile Hunter movie. That looked like a very funny movie.

Spoiler Warning:

Luigi: Yes, the commander was rogue. How can you tell? Through his actions. Let's see...

--Attack Chechnya w/o orders from the President
--Order attacks on America w/o orders from Pres.

etc.

Oh, and I really liked it too!:P

Was the Russian air commander a rogue? This wasn't made clear to me.

I though one of the terrorists had a line about something about having a guy in the Russian millitary who was ready to make his move.

Since the Romeo and Juliet board has people nitpicking the differences between book and movie, I shall do the same for this film (which I haven't seen yet but which I do know a bit about).

Cabot, in the book, was a fat lazy white guy who didn't really care about much of anything. He got no respect from Jack Ryan. I understand this is not the case in the movie.

In the book, the guys who dig up the bomb are the guys who use it. No money changes hands and the Druse farmer whose field it landed in, is glad to be rid of the thing. In the movie, the nuke is sold on the black market.

The terrorists of the book consist of two Arabs (Ghosn and Qati), one Native American (Marvin Russell) and a German scientist who is not a Nazi. Marvin ends up being killed by his partners while Ghosn and Qati are executed in Saudi Arabia. In the movie, one of the villains is killed by his cigarette lighter.

In the book, Jack Ryan is a middle aged married man with a slight drinking problem and a major stress problem. In the movie, Jack Ryan is... Ben Affleck.

In the book, Cathy Ryan is at home in Maryland when the bomb goes off. She doesn't even know it went off until Jack tells her it did. In the movie, she is working in a hospital in Baltimore when the bomb goes off and although she is standing in front of a huge window, she suffers only minor injuries.

In the book, the bomb goes off in Denver. In the movie, Baltimore is the unlucky city.

In the book, the bomb is a "fizzle," meaning that it was supposed to make a much larger boom. In the movie, the device goes off as planned, since there isn't really a way to translate the "Three Shakes" chapter into something an audience would begin to understand.

In the book, fighters from the carrier Roosevelt shoot down four Libyan fighters. The carrier streams along unharmed. In the movie, the carrier is attacked, and from the look of the previews, damaged if not destroyed.

In the book, the president was thinking about going to the game. He decides not to. In the movie, the president is at the game and is hastily evacuated before the bomb goes off.

I'll probably have plenty more once I actually see the movie.

Since the Romeo and Juliet board has people nitpicking the differences between book and movie, I shall do the same for this film (which I haven't seen yet but which I do know a bit about).

This has been setteled on the Lord of the Rings board. Since an adaptation is (by definition) diferent than the source material the change those things are not nits. They are still cool to discuss here as interesting trivia, but not mistakes.

In the beginning, when leaving Mt. Weather, VA, the President says "...nucular bombs," as opposed to nuclear.

Pick, pick...

Well, as one who lurks in the a.b.tom-clancy newsgroup, I've known for a long time that the only thing that the movie and book have in common are the title, characters and one or two big plot elements, such as the bomb going off. But fans of Tom Clancy generally regard SoaF as one of the best (if not the best) pieces of writing that TC has ever done. It would be such a shame not to let everyone know what they're missing. But you do have a point, which is that these things should be considered trivia rather than nitpicking per se. But those who loved the book consider the whole movie a nit!
(And I did include a bit of valid nitpicking, in that Cathy Ryan should have been cut to ribbons by the flying glass from the huge window that exploded right in her face... but she seems to share the same DNA as the dog in Independence Day and emerged relatively unscathed. It's scenes like that that should include the "don't try this at home" disclaimer.)

There was not actually a US air attack--it was a ploy on the part of the commander to get his crew moving.

The Russian commander was a rogue. At the end of the movie, he is the man chased through the forest and killed in the snow.

As for Olsen, the U.S. could simply tell the people that they looked for him, couldn't find him, and that the Russian government dealt with him first, or that he was killed. Look at the whole Bin Laden search. We may never be able to find him. Another government may find him and kill him. It's a believable situation.

Here's one: How did the Russian spy know that Ryan had just been engaged? There's one we'll never know. I guess he was that good.

Neither of the crashed Black Hawks exploded in Black Hawk Down.

Well, as one who lurks in the a.b.tom-clancy newsgroup, I've known for a long time that the only thing that the movie and book have in common are the title, characters and one or two big plot elements, such as the bomb going off. But fans of Tom Clancy generally regard SoaF as one of the best (if not the best) pieces of writing that TC has ever done.

You think? I've read pretty much everything that Clany's written up to executive orders (which I never finnished) and me and my friends always thought that Sum was one of his weaker Jack Ryan efforts, mostly because it seemes to take way to long to set everything up. Sum and Clear and Present Danger were the transition books where Clancy went from Jack being a field man in more danger situations to a boss man in more political thrillers situations controling others who are out in the field. I though that he did it much better in Debt of Honor.

D.W. March, did you ever see this movie? I thought was stayed true to the book in several areas where it counted, like the suspense ending involving Americans and Russians exchanging info on a computer rather than making it into some kind of shoot-em-up. They did compleatly eject the continuity of the past adaptations and work Ryan into a newbie at the CIA and having him meet Clark for the first time here (meaning that Clar and Presant Danger never happened) You will also be pleased to know that Liev Schreiber's John Clark is much more faithful to the novel than Willam Dafoe's was, even though I thought Dafoe was more interesting and I would like to see him play the lead in Without Remorse if it is ever addapted to the screen.

After looking at the visual effects section on the DVD describing all the hard work that went into the hospital explosion shot, I found it ironic that this scene contains one the more amatuerish goofs I have seen in a movie in a long time. Just as the policeman (or someone wearing all black clothes)crosses from left to right past the windows, he casts a shadow on the buildings many blocks away. Sloppy!!!

D.W.: Cabot, in the book, was a fat lazy white guy who didn't really care about much of anything. He got no respect from Jack Ryan. I understand this is not the case in the movie.

Well, the reason is that absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the personal life of Jack Ryan was copied from the novel. In the book, Cabot is part of the Fowler/Elliot syndicate that connive and conspire to ruin Ryan's life. The slow disintegration of Jack's life is intrinsic to the plot of the book. That is, as the situation with Ismael Qati and his group heats up, Ryan--one of the few guys in power worth anything--is being driven farther and farther away. By the time the nuclear device goes off in Denver, Ryan has already been dismissed from the CIA and is just hanging around temporarily here and there to finish up a few projects before quitting entirely. It's vital to the last few chapters of the novel that Ryan be a totally unwanted outsider to the administration so that the administration can, without his expert advice, bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

That entire element--the attacks on Ryan's personal life, the ignorance of the administration, etc.--is largely or even entirely ignored in the movie. Cabot as a useless dilletante serves no purpose in the movie.

Also because in the new imagining of Ryan, as a young man (which may be continued if Paramount decides to adapt Red Rabbit) he needed an older man to guide him. James Grier was Ryan's mentor in the books but does not appear in this book because he died in Clear and Presant Danger and probably couldn't appear in this movie because of rights issues with the books.


i>But fans of Tom Clancy generally regard SoaF as one of the best (if not the best) pieces of writing that TC has ever done.

Really? Back when I was in HS I used to read all of Clancy's books and me and my friends considered it one of his weakest, because it spent 400 pages giving us a setup that could have been done in 200. I think that one reviewer who was compairing the move and the book said the book, "lumbers along like an overloaded cargo plane."

It seems that "The Hunt For Red October" has been the closest of the Clancy adaptations, and even then some vital info was left out like WHY Ramius was defecting after so many years loyal service.

But fans of Tom Clancy generally regard SoaF as one of the best (if not the best) pieces of writing that TC has ever done.

SoaF was the last Clancy book I really enjoyed. Yes, it had a LOT of setup. But the setup was needed. By the time the end rolls around and Fowler/Elliot refuse to even listen to Jack, it is totally believable because we've spent 400-some pages learning how much those two hate Ryan. We see how petty they are and how incapable of leading the country they are; this makes their reactions in the tense final scenes of the book completely believable.

From here on out, the books go down hill, imho.

I thought Debt of Honor was a much stronger book, but yes after that everything started going down hill.

I have to say that I thouhgt Debt and Sum both stand pretty equal at the peak of Clancy. From here on out it feels kinda like the Clancy universe is kinda coasting or maybe its clancy himself. I don't know but I do know that the op center series is definately not gripping me.