this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
557 points (98.1% liked)
Greentext
4302 readers
1015 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like the movie made a change for the better.
It's been some time since I've read the book, but I always say, Forrest Gump is an example of the movie being better than the book.
Another example of this is Fight Club. The movie has the big twist, which isn't even hidden in the book.
The opposite of Marathon Man, where the book has a twist that the movie doesn't hide at all.
I agree, usually this isn't the case. IMO the other example of this is with Jurassic Park.
I recently read Jurassic Park for the first time and I thought the same thing. The movie provided a more engaging plot, had more emotional punch, and developed stronger characterization. Going back and reading Chrichton's work has been a rewarding exercise to me as a budding writer. He had some great ideas but also surprisingly had a lot of flaws in his work.
The best part of the book was making Hammond the villain, that should have been kept.
How do you mean?
I found the book much more compelling.
After I read it, I thought that maybe I would've cared about the movie if he had a scoche of relatability or development.
Movie gump seemed like a trope rather than a character as soon as the previews were being shown.
I think we read different comments... Space with monkeys?!