Export thread

When the movie/show is better than the book

#1

fade

fade

I may have done this one before. Can't remember. If so, I apologize. List examples of times you thought the movie or show was better than the book. We hear plenty of the opposite. I'll throw one of each out there.

TMNT (original series)
I really thought the television show had a better, darker feel overall. The pilot was particularly good. I also preferred the more sophisticated way in which the mutagen worked in the show.

The Princess Bride
Not terribly surprising, given that the author was a screenwriter first. Some of the bigger themes of the book disappear in the movie, but it's overall a better story.


#2

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

fade said:
TMNT (original series)
I really thought the television show had a better, darker feel overall. The pilot was particularly good. I also preferred the more sophisticated way in which the mutagen worked in the show.
Click to expand...
You're nucking futs. The original comic series (not the comic that was based on the cartoon) was dark, bloody and freakin great.


#3



Iaculus

The Bourne trilogy.

Also, Little Mermaid. Because Hans Christian Andersen was fucked in the head.


#4





Silence of the Lambs - The book sucked ass but the movie was buttuh!


#5

fade

fade

Shegokigo said:
fade said:
TMNT (original series)
I really thought the television show had a better, darker feel overall. The pilot was particularly good. I also preferred the more sophisticated way in which the mutagen worked in the show.
Click to expand...
You're nucking futs. The original comic series (not the comic that was based on the cartoon) was dark, bloody and freakin great.
Click to expand...
I know which one is the original. Liked the show better. Not saying the comic was bad, just liked the show better for various reasons.


#6

Fun Size

Fun Size

Fight Club.


#7

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

fade said:
I know which one is the original. Liked the show better. Not saying the comic was bad, just liked the show better for various reasons.
Click to expand...
Liking it better? Sure. Calling it "darker"? That's what I had issue with.


#8



Gill Kaiser

Blade Runner.


#9

Shannow

Shannow

League of Extrodinary Gentlemen

Twilight

The Grinch

Wanted

Jumper

Beowulf



All of these are FANTASTIC!!!


#10



Lally

I have never read it, but I've always heard that The Godfather was better than the Mario Puzo novel it was based on.

Bicentennial Man was based on an Asimov story, and while I love both, I think I liked the movie a little better. I probably sound like a sci-fi heathen, but I think it was because of the plot elements they added. Usually I hate when they add a bunch of stuff to a short story to make it into a long movie, but I really liked what they did to this one.

The Green Mile was another great one. I loved the book (novellas?), but I thought Tom Hanks and especially Michael Clarke Duncan were really good choices for the characters.

Gone With The Wind... I loved both, but it took me like 2 weeks of non-stop reading to read the novel and the movie is only a few hours, and of course features Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. So it wins.


#11

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Shannow said:
League of Extrodinary Gentlemen

Twilight

The Grinch

Wanted

Jumper

Beowulf



All of these are FANTASTIC!!!
Click to expand...
I freakin knew it!


#12

D

Dubyamn

Stardust I hear even had Neil Gaiman saying it was better than the original.


#13

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Dubyamn said:
Stardust I hear even had Neil Gaiman saying it was better than the original.
Click to expand...
Robert DeNiro's performance alone made it better.


#14

bhamv3

bhamv3

Shannow said:
League of Extrodinary Gentlemen

Twilight

The Grinch

Wanted

Jumper

Beowulf



All of these are FANTASTIC!!!
Click to expand...
I see what you did there.


#15

Charlie Don't Surf

The Lovely Boehner

Children of Men is a pretty good example of this.

I didn't think the Silence of the Lambs books were that bad at all. The movie was still better since it was one of the best movies of the 90s by far, but the books were still fine.


#16

figmentPez

figmentPez

My late sister said that The Great Mouse Detective was much better than Basil of Baker Street. I didn't think it was that clear cut, but I haven't seen/read either in a while.


#17

Enresshou

Enresshou

I'm going to catch hell for this, but V for Vendetta. I love everything else Alan Moore has done, but the comic just felt long and drawn-out to me. Yes, I know a lot of stuff was changed/adapted for the movie, but I preferred the movie to the comic.


#18



Batdan

Forrest Gump

the book was awful travesty


#19

Shannow

Shannow

The Running Man


#20



rabbitgod

I hate to say it, but I thought LotR was better in movie form.

There are some parts where clearly the book is better, but as a whole I like the movie much better.


#21

fade

fade

rabbitgod said:
I hate to say it, but I thought LotR was better in movie form.

There are some parts where clearly the book is better, but as a whole I like the movie much better.
Click to expand...
You're fired.

Clean out your desk. Security will escort you out.


#22



wana10

thank you for smoking. the book was crap and the movie is awesome.
harry potter 6. i hated the last couple harry potter books but the 6th movie was pretty good.


#23

fade

fade

Gill Kaiser said:
Blade Runner.
Click to expand...
Even Dick praised the movie. He said that Scott reproduced his internal vision frighteningly well, and that even though the book and the movie diverge, he thinks they're complementary.

(Haha, the censor starred out the name Dick.)


#24

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

fade said:
rabbitgod said:
I hate to say it, but I thought LotR was better in movie form.

There are some parts where clearly the book is better, but as a whole I like the movie much better.
Click to expand...
You're fired.

Clean out your desk. Security will escort you out.
Click to expand...
*cracks knuckles*
Where should you like I throw the body?


#25





I've felt that the Harry Potter movies are better, if only because there's so many needless side-plots in the books. Like basically everything with the house elves (like Hermione setting up some kind of anti-abuse...thing?) or the ridiculously long bits of camping in the last book. The movies take out a lot of the unnecessary side plots and make the plot much more fast paced.

I agree with Fight Club, except the ending. I know that even Paluhniuk prefers the movie ending, but I thought it was a bit too over the top and not as personal as the book's ending was.

Did Gaiman really say the Stardust movie was better than the original graphic novel? I've never read it, but I effing loved the movie, so I'd be curious to hear that confirmed.

Also, Sheg, did you know they just re-released a giant volume of the old TMNT comic? Hopefully, it's only the first of many.


#26

Simfers

Simfers

Enresshou said:
I'm going to catch hell for this, but V for Vendetta. I love everything else Alan Moore has done, but the comic just felt long and drawn-out to me. Yes, I know a lot of stuff was changed/adapted for the movie, but I preferred the movie to the comic.
Click to expand...
I'll whole-heartedly agree with this. Also with the bunny who liked the LOTR movies better than the books.


#27



rabbitgod

Simfers said:
Enresshou said:
I'm going to catch hell for this, but V for Vendetta. I love everything else Alan Moore has done, but the comic just felt long and drawn-out to me. Yes, I know a lot of stuff was changed/adapted for the movie, but I preferred the movie to the comic.
Click to expand...
I'll whole-heartedly agree with this. Also with the bunny who liked the LOTR movies better than the books.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

It's not that LotR isn't a fantastic book. It's great! In between chapters of http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Eating ... 84&sr=8-11 I'm reading Two Towers.

I just think there were whole sections of the book that could have been chopped down. I get that Frodo and Sam walked...a lot. But I don't really want to read it.

I do prefer short stories, so that obviously colors my position.


#28

ElJuski

ElJuski

ThatNickGuy said:
I agree with Fight Club, except the ending. I know that even Paluhniuk prefers the movie ending, but I thought it was a bit too over the top and not as personal as the book's ending was.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...the same overthetop stuff happens. There's just an extra chapter...which, really, isn't all that great in my opinion.


#29

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

I can see some one enjoying LoTR more in movie form. To me, that choice would mostly come down to plowing through all the poetry and songs that support the narrative. He also used some archaic English for some of the descriptive language. I still prefer the books, but those are my 2 gripes about them.


#30

Vagabond

V.Bond

Road To Perdition


#31





ElJuski said:
ThatNickGuy said:
I agree with Fight Club, except the ending. I know that even Paluhniuk prefers the movie ending, but I thought it was a bit too over the top and not as personal as the book's ending was.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...the same overthetop stuff happens. There's just an extra chapter...which, really, isn't all that great in my opinion.
Click to expand...
From what I remember (been about 5 years since I last read it), the buildings and such didn't blow up, he shot himself and put himself in a coma. Then, his little foot soldiers said they'd keep on the fight in his name or something.


#32





The Godfather


#33

Rob King

Rob King

I thought the Watchmen movie was a more cohesive whole than the Watchmen graphic novel, what with the different ending and everything.


#34

Gryfter

Gryfter

The Shining


#35

ElJuski

ElJuski

Rob King said:
I thought the Watchmen movie was a more cohesive whole than the Watchmen graphic novel, what with the different ending and everything.
Click to expand...
*throws coat over Rob* come on man, we gotta get you out of here before they eat you alive. Let's go go go


#36

Rob King

Rob King

ElJuski said:
Rob King said:
I thought the Watchmen movie was a more cohesive whole than the Watchmen graphic novel, what with the different ending and everything.
Click to expand...
*throws coat over Rob* come on man, we gotta get you out of here before they eat you alive. Let's go go go
Click to expand...
Oh god! Were those gunshots??


#37

SpecialKO

SpecialKO

ElJuski said:
Rob King said:
I thought the Watchmen movie was a more cohesive whole than the Watchmen graphic novel, what with the different ending and everything.
Click to expand...
*throws coat over Rob* come on man, we gotta get you out of here before they eat you alive. Let's go go go
Click to expand...
Quick, let's take [strike:142lvi0r]Shego's[/strike:142lvi0r] someone's conveniently placed van!



#38

fade

fade

Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.


#39

MindDetective

MindDetective

I agree on LotR, The Princess Bride, and the Bourne trilogy. I would also add The Postman, which was not a very good book, in my opinion.


#40

figmentPez

figmentPez

MindDetective said:
I would also add The Postman, which was not a very good book, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Are you crazy? The novel was much much better than the movie. Not that the movie was horrible, but there was so much more depth to the novel. There were so many huge chunks of the novel taken out for the movie, it changed the whole focus.


#41

MindDetective

MindDetective

figmentPez said:
MindDetective said:
I would also add The Postman, which was not a very good book, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Are you crazy? The novel was much much better than the movie. Not that the movie was horrible, but there was so much more depth to the novel. There were so many huge chunks of the novel taken out for the movie, it changed the whole focus.
Click to expand...
As far as I could tell, the movie only had two minor points in common with the book at all. It was an awful translation of the book, yes, but that wasn't the original question. The movie was better by many strides, I think.


#42

Calleja

Calleja

If anyone says "I, Robot", be prepared to be my nemesis. :devil:


#43

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

I found Iron Man and The DaVinci Code to both be better movies than their books.


#44

Calleja

Calleja

I don't think Iron Man qualifies since it wasn't based on any "book", or even comic-strip arc... just the character from them.


#45



Gill Kaiser

Calleja said:
If anyone says "I, Robot", be prepared to be my nemesis. :devil:
Click to expand...
It wouldn't really even make sense if they did, though, because "I, Robot" was a collection of multiple stories and had absolutely nothing to do with the plot of that celluloid travesty. I can't see how anyone could compare them.


#46

Rob King

Rob King

fade said:
Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.
Click to expand...
[spoiler:2j8zwech]In the comic, the alien attack wasn't nearly as tied into the plot as the Manhattan-bombs were in the movie.

In the novel, Vedit had to invent that extra, new, out-of-nowhere element to be the outside force that he could unify earth against. He made an alien, but it could have been interplanetary nuclear bombs, meteor strikes, crab people, mole men, Captain Crunch, or any number of other things as easily as an alien.

In the movie, however, that outside force (Manhattan) was there from the beginning, unwittingly contributing to it, eventually being screwed over by it, and ultimately conspiring with it.

It just fit better into the whole story.[/spoiler:2j8zwech]


#47

Calleja

Calleja

I kinda agree with Rob there, although it's still not quite enough for me to call the movie BETTER. I still loved it to pieces, though.


#48

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

The travesty that was the 1980's onward with Iron Man, makes the movie infinitely better.

And though this might disturb some, I find Charly better than Flowers for Algernon.


#49

Calleja

Calleja

WHAT?!!?!

How can ANYTHING be better than Flowers For Algernon!? :waah:


#50

Norris

Norris

Ok, fairness time: I have not read the book I am about mention. But I have read ABOUT the major plot elements on wikipedia....and I gotta say:

The Warriors, which was so deeply altered so as to have completely new main characters and a VASTLY different set-up. But here are two big examples of what I mean:
[spoiler:3j7aa7zz]You know the love interest girl? Who defects from another gang? Yeah. The Dominators (the main characters) gang rape her and just leave her in the subway in the book. Also, the scene where Ajax (James Remar) aggressively hits on then kinda threatens to rape an undercover cop who arrests his ass? In the book that apparently three gang members. Who try to gang rape an older woman and get arrested for it. Also, none of the characters in the book are over the age of 18 which makes the repeated gang raping more troubling than it was.[/spoiler:3j7aa7zz]


#51

Jay

Jay

The Shawshank Redemption


#52

CynicismKills

CynicismKills

HCGLNS said:
The travesty that was the 1980's onward with Iron Man, makes the movie infinitely better.

And though this might disturb some, I find Charly better than Flowers for Algernon.
Click to expand...
The problem is sometimes they do some amazing stuff with Iron Man, like Extremis (which would make a fucking awesome movie).

Then they go and do something like Ultimate Iron Man. :bush:


#53

Frank

Frankie Williamson

CynicismKills said:
HCGLNS said:
The travesty that was the 1980's onward with Iron Man, makes the movie infinitely better.

And though this might disturb some, I find Charly better than Flowers for Algernon.
Click to expand...
The problem is sometimes they do some amazing stuff with Iron Man, like Extremis (which would make a fucking awesome movie).

Then they go and do something like Ultimate Iron Man. :bush:
Click to expand...
HIS SKIN IS HIS BRAIN!


#54

fade

fade

Gill Kaiser said:
Calleja said:
If anyone says "I, Robot", be prepared to be my nemesis. :devil:
Click to expand...
It wouldn't really even make sense if they did, though, because "I, Robot" was a collection of multiple stories and had absolutely nothing to do with the plot of that celluloid travesty. I can't see how anyone could compare them.
Click to expand...
On that note, I'm surprised no one has said "The Iron Giant", which had only slightly more in common with the book. I'm exaggerating, but the book is very different.


#55



rabbitgod

I just watched Iron Giant this morning.

I should read the book. I should just read more probably.


#56





Rob King said:
fade said:
Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.
Click to expand...
[spoiler:rdesxxsw]In the comic, the alien attack wasn't nearly as tied into the plot as the Manhattan-bombs were in the movie.

In the novel, Vedit had to invent that extra, new, out-of-nowhere element to be the outside force that he could unify earth against. He made an alien, but it could have been interplanetary nuclear bombs, meteor strikes, crab people, mole men, Captain Crunch, or any number of other things as easily as an alien.

In the movie, however, that outside force (Manhattan) was there from the beginning, unwittingly contributing to it, eventually being screwed over by it, and ultimately conspiring with it.

It just fit better into the whole story.[/spoiler:rdesxxsw]
Click to expand...
*cracks his knuckles* If I don't respond to this, I'm going to go mad.

[spoiler:rdesxxsw]First of all, it wasn't a scene-by-scene transcription. For evidence of THAT, you've got Sin City, which is nearly a literal cut and paste job of the comic. However, there were huge chunks of dialogue removed from Watchmen, major plot changes, little changes that made other things make no sense (Laurie doesn't smoke, yet she still hits the flame thrower; a LOT of her fight for independence is removed).

The reason for the alien, rather than something home-brewed is because it's something that was so unfathomably out there that no one on Earth could even concieve it. They saw it as pure alien, therefore dangerous. Dr. Manhattan, on the other hand, was powerful, to be sure, but he was still human. And American. So, a giant threat like that, the blame would go to the U.S., not an unearthly source that the whole WORLD could unite against. Veidt had to create something that wasn't just a threat to the Earth, but something that we couldn't even percieve as something from Earth. So he created a giant fucking squid that caused people to die if they were in New York at the time and just looked at it. It send out brainwaves that drove people insane. That's near Lovecraftian threat, in the sense that you CAN'T understand it. And what's the best way to make someone fear something? By making it something that they don't understand. In Dr. Manhattan, they can somewhat understand him because he was human, he still looks relatively human.

The threat was tied into the book, but it was done nowhere near as blatant. You had the between-issues articles about missing artists, TV news reports about experimental teleportation devices, genetic experimentation (like Bubastis, who now serves NO purpose in the movie other than "Lookit the cool kitty!"). The reason that it's a fear of an outsider/intergalactic threat is that it's also regarding the Russians threatening to invade, which was a very clear threat back then and the propoganda made them out to be as foriegn as possible. Communism was an "alien" idea, one that Americans couldn't percieve, since they had the freedom to do whatever they wanted with their money. The whole idea behind Veidt's plan is that no one saw it coming, couldn't have possibly seen it coming and even the reader doesn't see it coming, unless they're paying close attention.[/spoiler:rdesxxsw]


#57

Chad Sexington

Garbledina

ThatNickGuy said:
Rob King said:
fade said:
Well I don't take offense. It was certainly more continuous with all the pirate parts and the Under the Hood excerpts removed. Outside of that though, it can't be too much more cohesive, since it's kind of a scene by scene transcription.
Click to expand...
[spoiler:2l6uyddd]In the comic, the alien attack wasn't nearly as tied into the plot as the Manhattan-bombs were in the movie.

In the novel, Vedit had to invent that extra, new, out-of-nowhere element to be the outside force that he could unify earth against. He made an alien, but it could have been interplanetary nuclear bombs, meteor strikes, crab people, mole men, Captain Crunch, or any number of other things as easily as an alien.

In the movie, however, that outside force (Manhattan) was there from the beginning, unwittingly contributing to it, eventually being screwed over by it, and ultimately conspiring with it.

It just fit better into the whole story.[/spoiler:2l6uyddd]
Click to expand...
*cracks his knuckles* If I don't respond to this, I'm going to go mad.

[spoiler:2l6uyddd]First of all, it wasn't a scene-by-scene transcription. For evidence of THAT, you've got Sin City, which is nearly a literal cut and paste job of the comic. However, there were huge chunks of dialogue removed from Watchmen, major plot changes, little changes that made other things make no sense (Laurie doesn't smoke, yet she still hits the flame thrower; a LOT of her fight for independence is removed).

The reason for the alien, rather than something home-brewed is because it's something that was so unfathomably out there that no one on Earth could even concieve it. They saw it as pure alien, therefore dangerous. Dr. Manhattan, on the other hand, was powerful, to be sure, but he was still human. And American. So, a giant threat like that, the blame would go to the U.S., not an unearthly source that the whole WORLD could unite against. Veidt had to create something that wasn't just a threat to the Earth, but something that we couldn't even percieve as something from Earth. So he created a giant fucking squid that caused people to die if they were in New York at the time and just looked at it. It send out brainwaves that drove people insane. That's near Lovecraftian threat, in the sense that you CAN'T understand it. And what's the best way to make someone fear something? By making it something that they don't understand. In Dr. Manhattan, they can somewhat understand him because he was human, he still looks relatively human.

The threat was tied into the book, but it was done nowhere near as blatant. You had the between-issues articles about missing artists, TV news reports about experimental teleportation devices, genetic experimentation (like Bubastis, who now serves NO purpose in the movie other than "Lookit the cool kitty!"). The reason that it's a fear of an outsider/intergalactic threat is that it's also regarding the Russians threatening to invade, which was a very clear threat back then and the propoganda made them out to be as foriegn as possible. Communism was an "alien" idea, one that Americans couldn't percieve, since they had the freedom to do whatever they wanted with their money. The whole idea behind Veidt's plan is that no one saw it coming, couldn't have possibly seen it coming and even the reader doesn't see it coming, unless they're paying close attention.[/spoiler:2l6uyddd]
Click to expand...
I often don't agree with you; but this. Exactly this. Thank you. I miss the squid (but still really enjoyed the movie).


#58





I thought the movie was okay, at best. I do understand what they were trying to accomplish. And some of the things that they did get right from the comic, they got them REALLY right. Unfortunately, the things that they got wrong from the comic, they got them REALLY wrong.

As an adaptation, it was putrid garbage.


#59

Chad Sexington

Garbledina

ThatNickGuy said:
I thought the movie was okay, at best. I do understand what they were trying to accomplish. And some of the things that they did get right from the comic, they got them REALLY right. Unfortunately, the things that they got wrong from the comic, they got them REALLY wrong.

As an adaptation, it was putrid garbage.
Click to expand...
Putrid garbage? That seems extreme. Yeah, see I don't often agree with you... :p


#60





Okay, putrid garbage is excessive, but then, so was the gore, violence and sex. The director doesn't get subtlety at all.

Sorry, I'll reel back on the putrid garbage comment. As I said, I thought as a movie, it was okay at best. There WERE some things I liked about it. I watched it once for free thanks to work, don't regret watching it, but won't watch it again.


#61

Shegokigo

Shegokigo

Watchmen the movie failed 100% because it's main character plot "Comedian/Laurie" was completely butchered.

As a standalone (not taking into account that it was taken from any kind of source material) it was a good film. But even my GF, who's not "big on comics" read the novel before the movie and did nothing but shake her head as she left the theatre that night.


#62

Rob King

Rob King

I disagree. The novel might be more in-depth, but as a cohesive whole, I still argue that the film was better tied together.

To argue that [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]the alien is just that foreign that nobody could conceive of it and blah blah blah ...[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] it's excessive. I don't disagree with you, but I don't seem to think it's as important. [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]Vedit's plan, in a line, was: "Provide an outside threat, that we can unify the earth in opposition to."[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] Removing [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]the alien[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] from the movie probably saved them at least a half hour of screen time trying to explain it and/or set it up.

As far as [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]Manhattan not fitting the world-threatening bill well enough, it's hard to get more threatening or removed-from-the-human-experience than a motherfucking god.[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] He might not be as [spoiler:3uq6uw6f]foreign as the alien, but he's foreign enough, and I fear the alien would have been too much anyhow.[/spoiler:3uq6uw6f] I need heat to cook a hot-dog, but I settle on a campfire when I want to eat. I don't hang out around Los Almos waiting for testing to begin again.
This second point is not one I care about, so like the French in Alsace-Lorraine, I'll abandon it as soon as somebody raises a challenge.

I also didn't say anything about it being a photocopy-onto-celluloid, 1:1 reproduction of the book, so I'll leave that one without much acknowledgment.


#63

Chad Sexington

Garbledina

Rob King said:
I need heat to cook a hot-dog, but I settle on a campfire when I want to eat. I don't hang out around Los Almos waiting for testing to begin again.
Click to expand...
Then your hotdogs are not hardcore enough. Come eat with me sometime, I'll show you a motherfucking BBQ.


#64

Rob King

Rob King

Garbledina said:
Rob King said:
I need heat to cook a hot-dog, but I settle on a campfire when I want to eat. I don't hang out around Los Almos waiting for testing to begin again.
Click to expand...
Then your hotdogs are not hardcore enough. Come eat with me sometime, I'll show you a motherfucking BBQ.
Click to expand...
?


#65



Wasabi Poptart

Gryfter said:
The Shining
Click to expand...
Really? The Shining scared the hell out of me when I read it. The movie, not so much.


#66

Chad Sexington

Garbledina

WildSoul said:
Gryfter said:
The Shining
Click to expand...
Really? The Shining scared the hell out of me when I read it. The movie, not so much.
Click to expand...
Yeah this. Mind you, I love the movie too. But the book gets inside your head so well.


#67



Philosopher B.

Dorko said:
Ok, fairness time: I have not read the book I am about mention. But I have read ABOUT the major plot elements on wikipedia....and I gotta say:

The Warriors, which was so deeply altered so as to have completely new main characters and a VASTLY different set-up. But here are two big examples of what I mean:
[spoiler:2iyionsp]You know the love interest girl? Who defects from another gang? Yeah. The Dominators (the main characters) gang rape her and just leave her in the subway in the book. Also, the scene where Ajax (James Remar) aggressively hits on then kinda threatens to rape an undercover cop who arrests his ass? In the book that apparently three gang members. Who try to gang rape an older woman and get arrested for it. Also, none of the characters in the book are over the age of 18 which makes the repeated gang raping more troubling than it was.[/spoiler:2iyionsp]
Click to expand...
Despite the horrors depicted in it, I thought The Warriors was a really well-written, realistic feeling book, as well as a completely different beast from the movie with different goals. There's no denying that the movie is more of a fun romp, though.


Top