MovieChat Forums > Islands in the Stream Discussion > Good, but why change the plot? - Steve

Good, but why change the plot? - Steve

posted 18 years ago by rsgre
24 replies | jump to latest

Hi everyone,
I always found the movie mildly interesting, but the ending seemed rather odd. I finally read the novel and now I understand why. Hemingway's ending had him dying while chasing down a German U-Boat crew. The movie decides to make a sympathetic German Jew refugee statement, at the cost of audience credibility. So instead of dying heroic, Thomas Hudson dies "dumb", and the audience just doesn't "buy it".
A real shame because the film comes very, very close to capturing the spirit of the novel; something that is very difficult to do with Hemingway.
I do enjoy the narrative, the depiction of the difficulty of family life among talented people, the price to be paid for war, and the reconciliation with death that we must all face at the end.
Good cast...well done by all. If only the script had been better...!

Regards,

Steve

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rsgre 18 years ago

Thanks for your comments Gnolti, glad to see that others agree. It's just so sad that they came so very, very close, and then "blew it" at the end. That's "show biz" I guess. Add this to many other films that came "so close to the mark" and then just missed it...much to our chagrin!
"To err is human", especially among artists apparently...

Regards,

Steve

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rsgre 18 years ago

Thanks for your comments everyone. I also felt they could have lingered a little bit longer when Hudson and his wife reconciliate at the end. Just another minute or two (instead of the abrupt cut to the plane flying away), would have added some much needed greater emotional attachment. That's show biz...!
Regards,

Steve

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrevorAclea 17 years ago

One of the reasons for changing the ending was that the picture was extremely difficult to finance and they just couldn't get the money for the U-boat sequence, even with the team behind Patton reuniting. As it was the picture proved almost impossible to market.

"Gentlemen, is this a great moment or a small one? I'm afraid I don't know."

[–] jetjagua 17 years ago

I found the films ending to be quite well done. A nice finish to a VERY under-rated film.

[–] hotfriend1 17 years ago

I've never thought that the second half of the movie was weak. In terms of plot and tension, it's the strongest part of the movie.

You asked the poster why she found the second half superior. Allow me to ask why you feel the audience didn't "buy" the refugee Jews and Thomas Hudson "throwing" his life away? I find that curious because I first saw this movie as a teenager and twenty years ago I still do "buy" it.

Actually, it's the book that's weak. Except for a few brief, shining moments (e.g., the dead German sailor and the civilians--I don't want to put a plot spoiler here), you miss the lean, muscular prose, the tip of the iceberg that left so much richness between the line.

And I don't agree that Hudson "threw" his life away. He'd lost his son, his favorite. Hemingway was said to be crushed when Castro seized Papa's Cuban home and expelled Hemingway. The great author's drinking and depression took him downhill pretty fast--and he was no more. Hudson clearly pitied these refugees. His son dead, wife gone, his two other sons busy at boarding school, Hudson put his life on the line for these strangers to spare them a horrible fate. In a world at war, he'd decided, perhaps, to follow his late son's example in his own way. In any event, he could no longer stay on the sidelines while a war raged across the globe.

I don't think they left out the U-boats to avoid showing Hemingway being to hyper-masculine. I think that the producers felt that audiences would "buy" that aspect of the novel. They may have been right. You have to recognize the difference between what works in a novel and what works on the screen. They're not usually the same thing.

This is more a character study. And a fine one at that. Since it is, Thomas Hudson lived and died the way he would have wanted to. That's Heminwayesque, certainly

[–] gnolti 17 years ago

OT, but I thought Castro and Papa had an understanding. Castro's idolizing of Hemingway is well known.

"Look what you did to my shirt."

[–] rsgre 17 years ago

Thanks for your comments everyone. I still think the ending was the worst part of the film, didn't seem to work at all...just plain dumb. Script was weak there and in other places as I mentioned before. Close...but no cigar..!

RSGRE

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

The problem is that the movie really messes up the the last third of the book, 'At Sea' and turns a good film into goop.

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

We didn't need to SEE a U-boat. The script and a shot of the German soldiers stealing a sailboat would have sufficed. The meat of it was the interaction between Hudson and his men. You can't tell me they couldn't film a proper ending for the same money that they actually put in the movie. Somebody simply tried to make a story that wasn't there. And some posters say Jordans quick death was better than the book. I think that really shows lack of imagination over how a scene described in the book could be filmed.

[–] rsgre 16 years ago

Hello everyone, been a long time since I have been here, interesting comments, thanks everyone. I'll take another look at the film, and maybe have more to say.
At the moment, I still feel the same as my past statements...manipulating the story line and turning them into outlaws at the end was a bad idea, and the audience didn't buy it...take care all..

RSGRE

[–] rwsmith29456 16 years ago

They didn't NEED a u-boat sequence. All they needed were some German sailors in a turtle boat and a hint about what was going on and anybody would have gotten the idea. The movie started out great but the ending stunk.

[–] rsgre 16 years ago

Thanks for your comments rwsmith...many of us seem to agree with the faulty screenplay...such a disapointment. All they had to do was follow the original story line, and have a little more pathos in critical scenes...would have been much better. Oh well....

RSGRE

[–] rwsmith29456 12 years ago

My thoughts exactly. I really liked it up until the bogus ending with the refugees. The hunting the U-boat crew was great (in the book) exciting and tense. What a waste of a good movie material cutting all that out of the film and replacing it with something that just ruined the movie to me, and I'm sure others who read the book.

[–] pablo-taylor 12 years ago

Who say's "the audience doesn't buy it"? What the OP means is that he doesn't buy it due to his preconcieved notions from having read the book first (which is fine) but he shouldn't be projecting his opinions on to everybody else.

Where this film fails for me is the underdevloped relationships between Hudson and his sons (not to mention the dreadful process shots cut with library footage during the fishing sequences), as it is the ending works perfectly well in the context of the film - sure it's different to the book but that doesn't make it a failure in itself.

Scott really holds this film together IMO, probably the best lead in a Hemingway adaptation to date.

[–] rwsmith29456 12 years ago

regre - I absolutely agree with you. What a way to ruin an otherwise fantastic movie.

[–] rsgre 11 years ago

Hello everyone and thanks for all your comments. It's been almost seven years since I posted my original one! Sorry to see that some comments have been deleted, I always like to hear other opinions, pro or con. I took another look at the film in the last few days. I don't find the characters as interesting as they were years ago, maybe the proper title should be "Derelicts in the Stream" or "Deadbeats out of the Mainstream"! A bunch of downbeat, fringe people with death tugging at their sleeve. Eddy is slowly drinking himself to death, Thomas Hudson is not far behind, Capt.Ralph keeps running essentially suicidal missions, and the oldest son is deliberately courting death by volunteering for a very dangerous job. A more diffuse story than I remembered and the ending doesn't help. All the way through the film we are told how bad the Germans are, only to have Thomas Hudson fighting the Cuban Coast Guard instead! It did not seem logical that he would risk his life just to drop off some refugees. He was on his way to the USA to be with his sons, and he already knew from Capt.Ralph's experience how dangerous that could be. Droping them off without incident, and having a run in with the Germans later would have made a better story. Oh well...what we see is what we got ! Overall...a worthy attempt at delivering the message. To err is human...they should have realized that sticking to the original story line was important to Hemingway fans...!

RSGRE

[–] Blueghost 7 years ago

An eleven year old post, but I'll reply anyway.

I think the idea was to not turn what had been a dramatic romantic piece into an action thriller at the end, but to keep a sense of action and heroics without losing the tone the film had set.

If the film had kept the Nazi story, then all of the previous build up probably would have been shot differently. And the film would have become, in a sense, a "triumph" of sorts for the Nazis having killed Scott's character. I think that's why it was changed.

Saving some refugee Jewish types takes that away, but still keeps the death scene.

Just rethinking my own thoughts off the top of my head ... I don't know. I think Hemmingway's original story, it sounds like was an act of both redemption and revenge for his eldest son. In that sense the film becomes very basic, and loses some of its introspection.

Just my two bits.