"Shoeless Joe" vs "Field of Dreams"
 

I don't usually like what Hollywood does to books, but I just finished Shoeless Joe and it was a train wreck. Field of Dreams is one of my all time favorite movies and it seems as though I only have Kinsella to thank for the idea. Tinsel Town really cleaned it up and gave it direction, IMO. The book had too many characters, too many side plots and was a chore to get through.

Anyone else feel the same way or am I crazy?

+1

Kinsella lost me when, in the book, he built ONLY left field.

I also read the Iowa Baseball Confederacy which was enjoyable for a while...then went off the deep end (i.e. a cemetery obelisk playing right field; Leonard Da Vinci touching down on the field via a time-traveling hot air balloon)--I know, I know...but it was passable before that.

Ha. Not shocking in the least. I didn't think it was possible to take fantasy too far, but Kinsella seems to have succeeded.

I cringed when they couldn't pronounce Cicotte's name correctly in the movie

I thought the book was better but I am a book person. I loved his using JD Salinger and while James Earl Jones was great as a parallel character, it wasn't the same. And there was no Oldest Living Chicago Cub. That said, I liked the movie too. I don't usually like Costner but he was superb.