Animation Source Forums

Since I just finished reading the book, I wanted to post something on here, so I decided to ask people which did they like better, the book or the movie? I haven't watched the movie yet, but I'm hoping to soon.

You can also add things you think each did better! For example, the book is more detailed, but the movie has better...well, I think you get the idea xD

I thought the book was very good, although I can't compare it with the movie since...well, I haven't seen it.

What do you think?

Well I think you're really going to need to see the movie in order to really adhere to your topic. However, in order to contribute what you were asking about, I will offer my views.


It's difficult to pick one over the other, really. And I actually like them both. Each has its strengths, and both have a lasting and dedicated fan base. The book, a winner of the prestigious Newbery Medal (given for excellent works of children's literature), is one of the richest and most touching children's stories ever written, and it has a prose which doesn't talk down to its reader, as I have often said. It is as engaging and entertaining a read for a teenaged or adult reader as it is for a child.


The movie is a Don Bluth product. That itself speaks volumes. And while Don Bluth's later works cannot compare with his great achievements (among those greats being not only The Secret of NIMH, but also All Dogs Go To Heaven, An American Tail, and The Land Before Time), the man is a true artist who really knows how to weave a magical experience in his movies (whether or not there is any magic in any of them). The Secret of NIMH was his first independent production after he left the Walt Disney company, and he and his team poured every ounce of their hard work and dedication into it. And it shows.


That being said, each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and any dedicated fan of both could delineate them (at great length, I'd imagine. lol)




A. Here are what I consider to be the strengths of the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH:

• Well first, like pretty much all books upon which a movie is based, it is certainly more detailed and richly-described than what was presented in the movie. Part of that, admittedly, is due to the fact that, as a book, it can delve into its story in greater length, and more detail.
  
  
• Unlike the movie, it does not introduce elements of magic in order to tell the story. Other than wild animals having given themselves names, and being able to communicate (necessary for a detailed story, especially one aimed primarily at children), there is otherwise some scientific plausibility to the story. It is at least conceivable for genetically-altered rats and mice to develop such a level of intelligence that they could accomplish some or even all of the things described in the book (I draw everyone's attention once again to the surprising information presented in the last section of the "Information" page of The Secret of NIMH...the section entitled "Parallels In Real Life", and the links included there along with the information: /nimh/en/info_general/&id_film=30).
  
  
• In my opinion, the character of Nicodemus is much better in the book than in the movie, and far more believable. He's younger (though he's also still older than most of the rats of NIMH), more virile, a stronger and more active leader (rather than the movie version of the character, who spends most of his time sequestered away in his chambers, and has to rely upon a staff to help him walk).
  
  
• The book provides a look at how the rats of NIMH prepare for the arrival of NIMH and the destruction of the rose bush, and provides some of the rats a chance to demonstrate their heroism. Something that is totally ignored in the movie.

B. As to the book's weaknesses, there are only a few that I have noticed:

• Any of the antagonists in the story are not the villainous and menacing forces they become in the movie. While Dragon, for instance, is still described as a dangerous and frightening foe, he's not the imposing, ravenous beast he becomes in the movie. In the case of NIMH itself, even Nicodemus' description of it, to Mrs. Frisby, is more generous, tolerant and forgiving than in the movie, and it remains simply a place of scientific study and experimentation rather than cruelty and fear. As to Jenner, he is not the scheming, amoral sociopath we've described him as in the characters section of The Secret of NIMH Source (and as he was designed to be) in the movie. He's apathetic, cynical, greedy and wants to surround himself and the rats with material comforts they didn't earn or create themselves, but he's no villain. He's even described by Nicodemus as a good friend of long standing, and one who was instrumental in the rats escaping from NIMH.
  
  
• Some of the key characters are described, often, in rather simple and brief terms. Of the four Frisby children, for example, only Timothy is described in any detail. The other children are pretty much described in nothing more than a sentence or two. The same is true even of Justin, Brutus, Sullivan, Arthur (a rat who does not appear in the movie), and each member of the Fitzgibbon family.
  
  
• The shrew ("Auntie Shrew" in the movie), Mr. Ages, Jeremy, and even Martin are not quite the characters they are in the movie (as I'll go into more detail there). They each were developed to a higher (and often more entertaining) level for the movie.
  
  
• Robert C. O'Brien, the author, frustratingly did not give Mrs. Frisby a first name. Nor did Don Bluth create one for her for his movie. Leaving fans of the movie, most especially, to develop a non-canon first name for the character (mostly the movie version): "Elizabeth", in honor of the movie character's voice actress. She is the only member of her family not to have an official first name.

C. These are what I consider to be the strengths of The Secret of NIMH:

• As noted above, the characters of Auntie Shrew, Mr. Ages, Jeremy and Martin are far more developed, and far more entertaining, than they are in the book. Part of this is due to good script writing and direction. Part is due to good voice acting (and casting). And still another part, at least in the case of Jeremy, is due to considerable input on the development of the character by his voice actor, Dom DeLuise. I don't know how much personal input the other voice actors had in fleshing out their characters (Wil Wheaton and the other child actors would have been too young to give creative input into their characters), but in the documentary about the making of the movie, presented on the DVD and Blu-Ray, both Don Bluth and Gary Goldman (both men shared adaptation and development duties, with a few others, for the movie and, of course, Bluth directed it) made it clear that Dom DeLuise wanted to be involved in the development of his character, and was responsible for many of the unique and hilarious character traits we see in the movie version of Jeremy (which are rather more bland, and far-less developed, in the original book). But Hermione Baddeley and Arthur Malet (Auntie Shrew and Mr. Ages, respectively) also portrayed their characters with an acerbic, crotchety snark and panache that has endeared them to fans for years.
  
  
• Bluth and his team were spot-on in their casting of the roles, choosing actors whose voices really did fit their parts. Some of these actors would do more work for Don Bluth on his other productions. And it is clear, from the end product, that each of the actors enjoyed their roles, and put their all into them.
  
  
• Like all great animated movies, there is minimal use of song throughout the movie, and what little is present is not sung BY the characters as musical numbers more reminiscent of theatrical productions, or the animated movies of the last twenty five or so years (including most sequels to beloved movies)...the directors and writers of which cannot seem to be able to make a movie without such things for some odd reason. In THIS movie, the only song is the tender lullaby "Flying Dreams", written by legendary song writer Paul Williams, and sung beautifully by Sally Stevens. It appears in the scene where Mrs. Brisby is feeding Timothy the broth with the medicine, and the combination of the song and the scene is a real tear-jerker!
  
  
• The encounter between Mrs. Brisby and Jeremy, and their subsequent fracas with Dragon, are shown in MUCH greater detail in the movie, and are far more entertaining and--in the case of the encounter with Dragon--far more intense and exciting. As is the initial encounter with the tractor, a scene which does not appear in the book (the initial appearance of the tractor is handled much differently in the book than it is in the movie).
  
  
• I have to give it to Don Bluth--when he crafts a movie, he knows how to create a menacing villain or two! When he adapted Robert C. O'Brien's book for animation, in order to create a great villain, he substantially changed one character: Jenner. In the movie, Jenner has become a real nasty sort--devious, amoral, conceited, manipulative and sociopathic. And while the book version of this character is as detailed as the movie version, and while both are great characters, you just cannot help but be drawn in and also unnerved by the character Don Bluth created. And his voice actor, Paul Shenar, crafted a wonderfully-nasty portrayal! A voice with a deep, oily and ominous vibe which is quite unsettling.

D. The weaknesses of the movie?

• Granted, any animated movie is going to be limited by how much of a story it can tell by nature of keeping within the standard time frame available to this form of storytelling. However, there are key aspects of the movie which are either glazed over (the events and experiences at NIMH; the Fitzgibbons family; the interactions of the Brisby family; Mrs. Brisby's experiences in the rose bush...all of which are presented in far greater detail in the book), or they are eliminated altogether (the rats early wanderings after leaving NIMH, including their experiences at the Boniface Estate and the discovery of the Toy Tinker's truck; the rats' preparations for NIMH's destruction of the rose bush, and their escape from it, including the heroic efforts of a few rats).
  
  
• The elaborate clothes worn, especially by the rats of NIMH, are a bit over the top. In the book, even the rats don't have such elaborate clothing. And certainly not swords, halberds and other bladed weapons. And the wild mice (and the shrew), at best, only wear scraps of cloth as shawls or other very basic augmentation...not to emulate the humans they've seen.
  
  
• The addition of magic. Changing a great character like Nicodemus into an enfeebled old wizard, who spends most of his time away from the other rats, was unnecessary, and a disservice to the character. And the magical amulet was another pointless addition which also stole the thunder from the rats in their efforts to move the Brisby home. In the book, the rats successfully move the home without any need of magic, and Nicodemus is not killed (and is not a wizard)...but he does spend a lot more time being an effective leader, actively involved with the other rats.
  
  
• The omission of some characters, including not only Farmer Fitzgibbon's older son, Paul, but most especially two rats: Isabella, the young girl rat who's got a serious crush on Justin, and Arthur, the engineer of the rats of NIMH. As noted in my article, certainly the latter two were important to the story: /nimh/en/articles/Official_characters_not_seen_in_The_Secr/254682.html&id_film=30.
  
  
• The confusing surname changes. Of minor consequence is the change of "Fitzgibbon" into "Fitzgibbons". That's not terribly important, and most fans probably didn't even notice. But the change of "Frisby" into "Brisby", out of some apparent concern, by the production people, that the Wham-O toy company would throw a fit over the similarity between the character surname and the name of their "Frisbee" fly disk toy is just silly. The company never made a fuss about O'Brien's book or its characters.
  
  
• The question of Mrs. Brisby's missing first name (a problem from the book) was never resolved officially by Don Bluth and the other screen writers...leaving fans of the movie to give the character a non-canon first name (as noted earlier): "Elizabeth", in honor of Elizabeth Hartman, her voice actress.

Finally, and I don't know whether or not this is a good OR a bad thing, but the colony of the rats of NIMH, under the rose bush, is rather more fanciful and elaborate than presented in the book. Certainly there are no magical devices used by Nicodemus, and the elevator down to the lower level is not some elaborate, waterproof lantern which passes through an aperture into a room capable of filling or draining of water according to the position of the lantern. The colony is described as having electrical current for different uses, including small Christmas lights on strings for lighting, and carpeting. But not on the order seen in the movie. While the settings and backgrounds there are very nice, and the artistry quite beautiful, it's extraordinarily different than what is presented in the book, and rather more fanciful.

Well, just got the movie from the library and watched it. Why do I need to say anything when JC says it all? xD

The thing that really bugged me in the movie was Nicodemus. Not at all how I envisioned him. Old (when the movie says, or least the book, they grow older slower), uses magic, and has a cane? That's ridiculous. Like you said, he stays locked up in his chambers most of the time, and doesn't get involved enough with the rats.

Another thing...magic? What is that about? I'll admit, I didn't mind the swords that much, I can understand that was just to make the movie more...interesting, I guess you could say. Magic was just going a little too far.

A character who I thought was very well developed in the movie has to be Auntie Shrew (Jeremy is also much more entertaining in the movie then he was in the book). Auntie Shrew just transformed from the book to the movie; a boring, non-entertaining character from Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH, goes to just a fantastic, entertaining Secret of NIMH character. Who doesn't love Auntie Shrew now? xD
Jeremy was the one who brought some humor to the movie; loyal, funny, and downright clumsy, he's definitely one of those movie characters you remember forever.

I just repeated a lot of what JC said. Like I said before, why do I need to say anything when JC says it all?
Thanks for sharing!

In my initial post, above, I edited it slightly. I made an error when describing the "fracas" with Dragon. I meant that the scene is much more detailed in the movie, not the book. XD


There isn't much of a discussion if each person doesn't contribute, even if in agreement. lol However, each of us has our individual viewpoints, and walks away from reading the book, and/or viewing the movie, with a unique perspective. In truth, while I greatly appreciate your agreeing with me, I would much rather have your feedback and the discussion rather than just a courteous nod of agreement.



In truth, even the book doesn't clarify just how old Nicodemus is. Though it is clear that, in the books (including the sequels), he is able to move about on his own, and in a relatively spry manner, without the use of a staff or cane or anything else. And is not nearly as old in the books as he is shown to be in the movie. I simply think that, when they redesigned the character to make him into a wizard, they probably felt that making him old, and giving him lengthy whiskers reminiscent of a wizardly mustache and beard, fit that version of the character better. And that an eye patch, as the character has in the book, might be perceived as a more villainous trait, since eye patches are so often associated with classical pirates.



She is definitely more entertaining and spicy in the movie than in the book. However, you have to remember that, in a movie, an actor can bring a lot of character into a portrayal which is almost impossible to do effectively in prose. They fill in a lot of perceptive gaps which literature is not generally capable of conveying to most people. Still, the shrew is not a "non-entertaining" character. She's simply different. The same elements are still there. She's feisty, she's concerned with the welfare of the field and its residents (and spends time moving around it delivering news and communicating with the animal residents, as well as taking it upon herself to see to their welfare. And she's actually braver, when confronted by the presence of the rats of NIMH, than she is in the movie. In the movie, when the rats arrive at the Brisby home, in spite of her boasts to the Brisby children concerning the rats, she shrinks in fear. In the book, she stands her ground, before the Frisby home, keeping the rats at bay. She even bites one of them! (And shrews are known to have a poisonous bite! Arthur, of course, doesn't die from the bite, as he appears later, and in the literary sequels. But the shrew, in the books, is no bore.)


Now look at that, Legolas! We have one item to disagree on. lol An open door for further discussion!

will vary according to the category, service, and the time duration that you want. But when you compare the price rate with the other agencies, you will realize the best service you want
voip phone service