Book vs. Film differences?


I haven't read the book and I doubt I will get around to it. If there are some significant events that take place through the book that perhaps the film skips over that would be helpful and appreciated.

"When you're slapped you'll take it and like it."

reply

[deleted]

There are quite a lot of differences between the movie and the book. Some prominent ones:

- the three women were witches with power before the warlock Darryl showed up. He was actually drawn to Eastwick because of their powers.

- after peacefully living together, Darryl marries Jenny, a young and innocent friend of the three witches. So he leaves them, not the other way around as in the movie. In revenge they give Jenny cancer. When Jenny dies, they realise their mistakes and question their own judgement. Chris, Jenny's brother, leaves town with Darryl. After that all three witches leave town as well.

- there is a sequel, the Widows of Eastwick, which takes place thirty years later, when the three witches return to Eastwick and Chris takes revenge on them for Jenny's death.

reply

Also the Witches were friendly with Felicia until Darryl's arrival. There are even some lesbian scenes involving the four of them.

After Clyde kills Felicia to put her out of her misery (they made her throw up more than just cherries in the book), he kills himself.



"I'm in such bad shape, I'm wearing prescription underwear." Phyllis Diller 1917-2012

reply

The witches are far more amoral in the novel, particularly Jane. They are by and large indifferent to Felicia's murder, even suggesting that she brought it on herself with her nonstop, self-righteous ranting.

**********************
In heaven everything is fine.

reply

Them being witches should've made the movie. The title is very dumb if they aren't. And his arrival makes more sense

reply

Its pretty self explanatory that their witches..they conjured or summon Daryl up and he arrived and he was just what they wished he would be

reply

Everything everyone's said here pretty much answers the question. I'd love to see a remake of this film that's more faithful to Updike's novel with less comic caricatures. They could get away with the original ending nowadays more than they could in the late 80s as well.

reply

I haven't read the book for 25 years, but I do remember it's nowhere near as fantasy like as the movie. The witchcraft is far more age old and mild (eg curses) as opposed to explosions, fire and extreme voodoo. Also, the female characters personalities are somewhat different.

There is also a much longer plot to do with Richard and Felicia's children, along with lesbian subplots and the fact that Darryl Van Horne basically turns out to be gay, less so than the devil! It's a good read though, so it's worth getting hold of.

reply

Updike hated the movie and wanted nothing to do with it.

reply

He should never have let it become a movie. Hollywood screws up most books.

reply

Know what? There're these things called Cliffs Notes that would answer your question in a jiffy . . . or there's this thing, The Oxford Companion to American Literature that would . . . oh, wait. Sorry. I just realized that you're a lazy, stupid fuck who doesn't feel like reading.

And this is clearly intended for the OP alone.

reply

Or... how about he just asks the question in a movie board so that people who know can answer, which they’re clearly more than happy to do, and other people with the same question, like me, can also benefit from the discussion?

reply