#differences between book and movie

[jackklinemybeloved]

[…]

Percy’s warning to fellow half-bloods in the audience, across different mediums.

The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan (2005) The Lighting Thief: The Percy Jackson Musical (2017) Percy Jackson and the Olympians Series Teaser (2023)

[critical-chris]

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

"Germany will soon be empty"

For a handful of years after college, I never read a book. I obviously had to read things in everyday life, but the most progress I made in any single book was getting halfway through American Psycho before putting it down for three years. By the way, that book gets batshit disgusting in the second-half stretch, and makes me shudder at the thought of a rat as much as the book our film of the day was based upon.

When 2022 rolled around, I thought about what resolutions I could pretend I'd follow through on. Exercise, diet, all the usual ones you give up by the Lunar New Year (January 22nd this year, I had to look it up). After looking at the near empty bookshelves in my office, I thought 'why not start reading books this year?' And a resolution was born, and I'm proud of myself for reading 12 titles total, one per month, before Christmas. My last book ended up being Stephen King's It. A book so thorough in it's set-ups, themes, and length (1100 pages, go fuck yourself Stevie) that it made me hate the 2017 movie adaptation and its sequel after revisiting them. For the record, I think the TV movie with Tim Curry is a better adaptation of that story.

I kept today's movie in my Netflix queue forever, waiting to get done with It and move to this title so I had a chance to read the 1929 novel before seeing the most recent adaptation (apparently there were 1930 and 1979 movies made about the book). 159 quick pages breezed by, and I finally sat on my bare mattress, with the sheets in the wash, to watch Edward Berger's 2017 offering.

When I was reading All Quiet on the Western Front, I realized I was becoming the very thing I rolled my eyes at for years: people who can't stop telling you how much better the book was than the movie. Even when I was a kid, I loathed the classmate that talked about how much better the Harry Potter series was than the films. Yeah, shithead, we all read them and yeah, asshole, they were mostly all more detailed and richer than the movies. Except Order of the Phoenix, yeesh that book is a slog to finish. Snooze city.

Therefore, I'm not going to spend much of this review talking about the differences between All Quiet on the Western Front (2022): the book and the movie. I'll save those points for the end if anyone is interested in reading the major ones I noticed. With that out of the way, let's get on to the review--

First, the movie is all in German (as it should be) so make sure you're in for 2 1/2 hours of intently watching this film. I have no idea if there is a dub available since I know Netflix likes to do that sometimes, but please don't watch anything dubbed. Just read the damn movie, it's so much better when you don't have to suspend belief when words don't match moving mouths.

This movie follows a group of bright-eyed, young adult German recruits enlisting in the army during World War I, sent to fight in the trenches on a path to Paris in what they believe will be three days long. They are subjected to the brutal, grim, unforgiving reality of trench warfare and beaten down from idealistic teens to emotionally dulled war fodder. It is realistic and critical of its depictions of combat, war politics, and loss.

I'm a big fan of war movies, and was always fascinated with World War II history like every young white boy who couldn't fight to save his life. However, I had not researched World War I as much but was fascinated with the release of 1917 and was looking forward to this film, expecting it to be another vicious depiction of The Great War. And fuck was this movie heavy and took a more Hacksaw Ridge approach to the violence.

The cinematography in this movie is perfect in my opinion. The trenches and battlefields are constantly muddy and fog mists down and blinds the viewer and soldiers from the terror hiding within. These scenes are countered with the warm-lit luxury of political leaders' offices far from the front lines, and French countryside. I've seen some complaints about the movie feeling dreary and depressing. Uh, yeah that's the point. Nobody claims Saving Private Ryan is too dreary because it's the fucking point.

The acting, all by German actors I've personally never seen before, is also great. I swear the lead actor Felix Kammerer who plays Paul is just the German version of the kid in 1917. Albrecht Schuch is fantastic as Kat, who ends up having the closest bond with Paul. Everyone else is decently well-rounded or just play their character trope before being horribly killed, frankly.

I liked the addition of the political storyline headed by Daniel Bruhl negotiating Germany's terms of surrender (although refusing to say it). I thought is was a good underline of the movie's theme that government and politics think of soldiers as means to an end and second priority to their own desires.

There's nothing I can really mention that could have been done better in this movie. While it was an important part of the book, maybe they didn't have to show the scene of Paul stabbing the French soldier half to death and watching him die in a crater. That could have taken the 2:30 hour runtime and cut it down to 2:15 by cutting that alone, which is a bit more palatable of a runtime. I'm annoyed by the recent wave of movies with 2:30+ runtimes that really have no business being that long. Marvel, I'm looking at you in particular.

Overall, this is a very successful war film, a decent adaptation of the source material, and a movie I'm sure will garner a few awards.

All Quiet on the Western Front: 8.2/10

Now, for those of you interested in differences between the book and the movie, and what I thought of their choices, here we go-

The major difference I noticed is the removal of the plotlines where Paul goes on leave to visit his family and when he serves as a prison guard, and when he and Kat lie in the hospital. Instead, they have written out the political storyline of the generals hammering out details of surrender, and giving background on the mustached general who eventually sends off the troops on a fools errand at the end of the movie. Personally, I liked the political storyling to emphasize the disconnect between the government and it's soldiers, but I think the book did it the better way.

In the book, it shows not only the disconnect between the leaders and men, but also the soldiers and their families, neighbors, and fellow citizens. They've been through so much shit they can't function normally in society, and begin feeling sympathy for their captured enemies. I think that would be a bit more interesting than the film's choices. If you haven’t read it, I recommend you do so.

[shoot1ngst4r]

dare i say Billy Hargrove?

the misunderstanding of Billy as a character is genuinely my roman empire, it’s been on my mind for years but idk if anyone will wanna listen😭 (i’m open to conversations btw)

[5-pp-man]

no you don't get it. i literally love stories where they dive into people's hearts/minds (literally or figuratively) sm it's my favourite type of storytelling.

[tainebot01]

A silly little drawing from January last year, based on the difference between book and movie Toothless.

[uselessalexis165]

i love you characters with similar qualities that get criticized more just for being women

[arrimorr]

Your art style is very unique it reminds me of professional artist that draws old children stories

What inspired you ?

Thank you so much 😭😭😭 Im honestly very surprised whenever someone says I have any form of a style in what I do, because, personally, I think I am a bit all over the place (which is normal since Im still trying a lot of things out for myself)

First of all, I'm very inspired by Brecht Evens, especially the way he works with color and is capable of showing different light environments through it.

My brain chemistry was also forever changed by the way over the Garden wall artists went about depiction of creepy cartoony stuff.

Also, I've been going though a process of re-evaluating soviet art for the last couple of years. I absolutely HATED it as I child but I had to revisit it for one of my Uni researches and there are actually a lot of fun examples of work with color and shapes there????

[jeeaark]

Awe, Emps, I won't judge you for reading the trashy half-orc romance novel. I DO want to know if you read it BEFORE or AFTER meeting GG :3

Aight, so I don't believe I can reasonably answer that question, but! I can say that The Emperor definitely skimmed through the sparknotes version while rifling through Greygold's memory files during the guardian creation session. Worse off, The Emperor discovered that Greygold's introduction to fictional romance wasn't even from the original book. It was a passing-by parody puppet show.

Despite being the butt of the joke, seeing the half-orc puppet find somebody that genuinely cares about him and vice versa gave young impressionable Greygold that lil 'Oh shit that's possible?' realization. So lots impact. Much influence.

The Emperor did what it could with Greygold's nostalgia for the uh...Exaggerated unofficial source material .

[blueskittlesart]

uh oh sisters. hunger games hyperfixation

[violentdelvghts]

With all my knowledge and intrusion... I could never entirely predict you. I can feed the caterpillar and I can whisper through the chrysalis, but... what hatches, follows its own nature and is beyond me.

[queenofalmosts]

I've literally seen multiple people in published article reviews of red white and royal blue say that one difference between the movie and the book is that in the movie alex already knows he's bisexual but in the book he doesn't and it just makes me wonder if we watched the same movie??? Like his coming to terms with being bisexual is obviously not as involved or detailed in the movie as in the book but he doesn't already consider himself to be bi in the movie until after his conversation with Nora... just like in the book he doesn't place any significance on his prior experience with guys until Henry and then he realizes that he is actually bi and that wasn't just guys being dudes lmao... like it's just driving me crazy that people are writing full published articles while misinterpreting what actually happens in the movie... like people's media literacy really does suck sometimes... the reason it's a big deal for him to tell Henry and his mom that he is bisexual is because he literally just realized it himself!!!!! He didn't already know!!!! where the fuck are people getting that from????

[sejjiplinth]

sejanus and marcus truly have one of the most insane dynamics from the franchise, like i have never been this crushed over a story between two characters in my life. 😭

i was really expecting the movie to take advantage of their past, to bring that raw emotion to the screen. because even after a whole DECADE, sejanus still remembers and cherishes marcus for what he did for him when they were children. marcus helping sejanus with his hurt finger on his own, showing him kindness, never left him. sejanus never experienced that level of generosity in the capitol, i don’t think he was treated that way ever again.

it breaks me reading their scenes in the zoo and during the questionnaire, because sejanus so desperately wants to make amends with him. but marcus has made up his mind, he doesn’t say a word to him, he doesn’t trust him, and he never gives in. the plinth’s are despised in two, sejanus being his mentor won’t change that. sejanus bringing him food, and offering it to him multiple times won’t either. sejanus goes as far as to ask coriolanus to trade tributes because marcus being his tribute is taking that much of a toll on him, while he clarifies that it’d be terrible with anyone, it’s marcus that brings him so much emotional distress.

marcus’s torture being displayed as a message, but also to get under sejanus’s skin… dr. gaul teases him about marcus’s disappearance, (most-likely) knowing they’d already caught him. and looping back to the reaping, strabo buying the district two boy… done only to shove it in his face that he could never go back to two. sabotaging him with marcus seems to be a common theme.

when marcus dies, sejanus honors him. sacrificing himself just to do so. he’d planned to die in there with him, too. and if coriolanus hadn’t been sent in, it would’ve worked. when he agrees to leave with coriolanus, he doesn’t want to go without marcus’s body.

marcus, undeniably, had a very large role in sejanus’s actions, in his resistance, and once he was gone, sejanus doesn’t have a purpose to live anymore. he tells coriolanus in part three that after the arena, he had planned to end his own life, one of his reasonings being because of what happened to marcus. and that was not the first time he’s considered suicide over marcus’s fate, he feels that guilty over him.

sejanus still keeps pictures of marcus, takes the childhood class photo where marcus is standing behind him to district twelve. ma comments on how she knew marcus’s dismay “hit him hard”. coriolanus calling sejanus dramatic over going into the arena, and sejanus reacting as if coriolanus had slapped him across the face.

they met for the first time in district two, then again in the capitol, and eventually in death. just . MY GOD!!!!!!!

[sp00ky-scary]

Anyway thought that I am expressing now that I've reread at least 1 EAH book. I do not understand why people use elements from the Shannon Hale books to discuss characters in the context of the show because whilst I think some aspects of the books can inform how you see the characters outside of them (e.g. minor events, comments on characters appearances, and silly things like Apple needing glasses (which is canon outside of the books anyway)) I'd say that the books diverge so far from the show (plot wise, characters are actually pretty consistent) that using elements from the books in the context of the show doesn't rly make sense. E.g. Apple almost drowning as a child because like yes that happens in the books but there is nothing to suggest that that applies to the show in any way so bringing it up when discussing Apple's motivations in the show doesn't make sense. Like in the books they also have a party after Legacy Day and instead of just having a vision in a well Raven and Apple go on a whole adventure, do you think those events also apply to the show ??? Like they're different canons and different versions of events and personally I don't think it's useful to conflate the two and tbh outside of like the mess that is FNAF I think EAH is the only fandom where I've witnessed two different canons be treated almost as one. Maybe I'm just being overly pedantic though.

[writeouswriter]

People need to start understanding the difference between actually harmful or "bad rep" vs just rough around the edges but still complex and nuanced rep that doesn't quite line up with your own personal experiences or the over-sanitized ideal of what you think "good rep" should be

[multi-babii]

i've rewatched the red white and royal blue movie and it's killing me that they cut out all of their family relationships and issues. june, the divorce, bea and her addiction, cathrine not even being in the movie, henry's dad and his death. all of these had so much impact not only on their romance but on their characters.

like i completely understand why they cut out so much about the election and other political stuff. but i don't understand why they couldn't include these important factors in their love.

[midnightstargazer]

There's a tendency in the Marauders fandom that I don't think I've ever seen to this extent before, of making no distinction between headcanon/fanon and canon. Granted, I only started getting back into fandom stuff within the past year, but I was involved with a lot of different ones in my teens and early twenties, including an earlier version of the HP fandom. There was always a distinction.

With Marauders fandom, it's not just "I totally forgot Remus isn't obsessed with chocolate in canon" or "it never actually says Mary and Lily were close friends, but I think it makes sense if they were." A lot of the time, there's no distinction at all between what was in canon, what was in a really popular popular fanfic, and what somebody just made up five minutes ago. It's more like:

"I think people forget that [headcanon]"

"It's so sad that [headcanon]"

"When [headcanon happened], [character] totally [did/felt/thought] [whatever]"

And it's so often totally out-of-left-field stuff that has nothing to do with canon - ships that are never even hinted at, details about characters that are literally mentioned once, etc. Or even things that directly contradict canon, not as AU/canon divergence ideas, but as facts.

Is this because we all hate JKR? Because a lot of newer fans haven't read the books/seen the movies? IDK, but I feel like there's an issue with just stating things as fact when they're very much not. Like, I'd rather read about why someone thinks [insert headcanon here] - whether that involves analyzing and critiquing the canon text or something as simple as "I think it would be cool." Headcanons are great! But I think something gets lost when we forget they're headcanons.