They left out so many good scenes.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Misery
walpen87 — 12 years ago(April 23, 2013 01:55 AM)
They left out so many good scenes.
In the book I could really feel the hate against annie and all the suffering and pain. But it isnt that bad in the movie. Just a little bit worse than a real hospital. Even his legs heal pretty well.
And they left out the whole painkiller addiction thing .. all the gore-scenes (never leave them out .. it could make your film to an all time classic) .. Annies black-outs .. eating orgy .. the punishments (she just dropped some papers on his lap .. oh no x) .. killing of the cops .. the negligence of her animals ..
All this little things would have created a great atmosphere.
As a viewer I have the impression that Paul writes this book in just a couple of hard weeks. They didnt catch the time very well.
Maybe the movies isnt that bad .. but if read the book just a week before, you will have a bad time
-
Mimapopaluck — 12 years ago(April 23, 2013 02:10 PM)
His injuries in the book were worse. He had a crushed pelvis, too. He couldn't go long without the Novril without being in terrible pain. In the movie he can afford to sacrifice his pills to hide under his mattress. In the book he'd never be able to do that. He became hooked on Novril.
The book feels different because it's all told from Paul's perspective. It never leaves Annie's house. It barely leaves Paul's bedroom. The only parts I am glad they left out were the excerpts from the new Misery book Paul was writing for Annie. -
BertramWilberforceWooster — 12 years ago(April 23, 2013 02:13 PM)
I had the same problem with The Godfather.
Anyway, to the topic at hand, adding gore into the film in unnecessary. Psycho is a classic without gore. Same with Silence of the Lambs. Gore is unnecessary when the story works so well. The scene with the hobbling is especially horrifying. That's different than the book but it's more effective on screen.
We don't need to know that Paul was addicted to Novril. It adds nothing to the movie. Similarly, we don't need to know about her black-outs, obsessive eating, and the animals. The film is terrific. I suggest you watch it again in about a year once you've let it settle down in your mind. You'll realize that this is a fantastic adaptation.
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/ -
Mimapopaluck — 12 years ago(April 24, 2013 02:15 PM)
Agreed. I didn't care about the absence of gore. Misery's strength is the suspense. It could could still be brutal without blood. I wince in pain when Annie slams the stack of typing paper down on Paul's broken legs.
-
MonoEnojado — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 03:25 PM)
Same here. I read the book and then watched the movie. I certainly enjoyed both of them, and I think the adaptation was really well done.
Reiner went after a more suspense direction than a gory one.
Why do people always think that movies should be made word by word from a book? Do they even understand the meaning of "adaptation"? -
BertramWilberforceWooster — 12 years ago(February 25, 2014 01:20 PM)
Agree, but there were things that were left out. The side-story in Vegas was unnecessary to the film, so I had no problem with that missing. For me, it was just tiny details. To be honest, it's been so long since I read the book, I can't remember what those details were.
If I cannot smoke cigars in heaven, I shall not go! -
fiatlux-1 — 12 years ago(June 19, 2013 09:16 PM)
I hated the book.
While there was a little more background given on Annie (but a disturbing lack of it even there!), it was too grisly. Not enough suspense.
The film certainly provides that. The book is just one injury to Paul after another, the film at least tells a story along with it.
"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush." -
ccr1633 — 11 years ago(November 02, 2014 08:59 PM)
CasseroleWorshipper wrote:
I agree that the Novril addiction was something that should have been included in the film, in which Paul was much more lucid.
Well, they did at least at one point have Paul fake like he desperately needed Novril. -
LemonTastic — 12 years ago(July 22, 2013 05:17 AM)
I read the book long after I saw the film and I have to say, I prefer the book. the film was brilliant, Kathy Bates played Annie Brilliantly. As you said, they missed the pain killer addiction, I liked that because it made Paul more dependant on Annie, I think she knew it would happen so she could hold him longer.
-
BlackEden — 12 years ago(September 12, 2013 02:05 PM)
Totally agree with you walpen87.
I read the book a couple weeks ago, then saw the movie shortly after. Oh man, it was so terrible.
The only Stephen King movie that is really awesome with following the original storyline is "The Mist" - minus the twist ending, which I personally thought was refreshing. -
rabbitmoon — 12 years ago(September 19, 2013 01:57 AM)
I think this can easily happen though if you compare them too close together. You need more time before the film to see it more objectively, without the bias of having been so intimately involved with the book so soon beforehand.
Similar comparisons can be made between Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining and the book. He left a lot out, changed a lot, but for the medium of cinema the film works really well and much better than the more faithful tv adaptation. -
Sheldom — 12 years ago(October 10, 2013 08:03 AM)
Not really, I loved both the book and the movie. Realistically, Directors have aa tough time turning a great book into a great movie. Things are going to be left out, put in and this movie's case reworked.
I loved the book, but I found a lot of the violence overly gruesome (when he got histhumbs cut off especially seemed like violence for the sake of violence to me) for no other reason outside of ''Annie is crazy''
Kathy Bates and the screenplay allow Annie to be a more belivable and intelligent woman. She seems naive but really is cut throat and sneaky.
There are scenes i would've liked to have seen as well, but for what the film is, I have to say it's pretty fantastic in it's own right. The Director got the perfect balance of the book and his own style. -
Sheldom — 12 years ago(October 10, 2013 08:12 AM)
Not really, I loved both the book and the movie. Realistically, Directors have aa tough time turning a great book into a great movie. Things are going to be left out, put in and this movie's case reworked.
I loved the book, but I found a lot of the violence overly gruesome (when he got histhumbs cut off especially seemed like violence for the sake of violence to me) for no other reason outside of ''Annie is crazy''
Kathy Bates and the screenplay allow Annie to be a more belivable and intelligent woman. She seems naive but really is cut throat and sneaky.
There are scenes i would've liked to have seen as well, but for what the film is, I have to say it's pretty fantastic in it's own right. The Director got the perfect balance of the book and his own style.