For someone who has read the book, it is worth reading?? I have seen the movie and have loved it but will the book ruin it and/or be predictable since I have seen the movie??
Lorelai:The government will close that day.Barbra Streisand will give her final concert... again.
If you adored the film because it excites great emotion, then you'll love the book. I think the book has some very good stuff but IMO they're on the side of the main story - the core is a bit muddled, Lowenstein isn't really credible as a psychiatrist, neither in the film nor in the book, and Savannah is somehow left out of the story - the connection between the thingss Tom tells the doctor and her work to help Savannah is never made clear, so I feel the book buys into a murky "tortured artist myth" (Sylvia Plath etc) But if you accept that the book is really to be read as a romance, then I suppose that may not be a big issue. The film certainly is the romance between Tom and Susan.
The really good bits are the ones which are to do with the Southern background of Tom and Savannah, like the dinner with Herbert and Susan where Tom and Herbert try to be ironically disdainful of each other and their families, and Tom, drunk, finally threatens to toss Herb's ancient violin into the street, it's brilliant satire; so is the story of the turkey and the turtle.
i have to disagree with that. those things were made fairly clear in the book and savannah wasn't left out of it like the movie. but like you said, there's a lot of interesting stories and characters from their childhood that you miss out on in the movie. if you read the book, you'll prefer it over the movie any day. however, it is quite confronting.
freakin' idiot! napolen dynamite
I have three words... Read The Book!
I enjoyed POT the movie, however, the book offers so much more. I read the book 4 years ago, and it still is one of my all time favorites. Unfortunately, you won't be surprised by the events because you've already seen the movie. However, the love between Luke, Sallie, and Tom are really explored and it's rather touching. As the book goes further, you can see how powerful the sibling relationship is, and the devastating effects that happen due to loss.
The movie was simply a romance. The book displays so much more. There is so much psychological and emotional depth present that the romance between Susan and Tom is just one of the many ways to explore further into the depths of Tom's psyche.
It's a must read!
I'm reading it right now and I love it. It goes into so much more detail than the movie especially about the characters and I love it! I would love to discuss after I read it!
Lorelai:The government will close that day.Barbra Streisand will give her final concert... again.
I loved both the book and the movie. I wish they would have included some more of the stories in the movie. the funeral home scene was totaly cool!
I was able to understand parts of the movie more after reading it, because the book kind of set up the scene better. Hope you enjoy the book.
You might be surprised to see the larger role the Tiger played in the book version.
We in it shall be remembered;
We few, we happy few,
We Band of Brothers ~W.S
If anything, the book is far MORE emotionally wrenching than the film. Savannah has a far larger presence, as does Luke (whose character is the linchpin of the novel, but who almost never existed in the film). It's not what you'd call a pleasant read, although Conroy's story and use of the language is superb -- the Wingos (and Lowenstein) go through too much to make it in any way escapist fare. But I found it very therapeutic when I was dealing with some issues in my own family past.
share. . . has a far larger presence, as does Luke (whose character is the linchpin of the novel, but who almost never existed in the film).
YOU MUST READ THE BOOK!!!! The movie basically excludes the bond between Luke, Tom, and Savannah, which is the very core of the novel. Prince of Tides is by far one of my favorite novels because it is so very moving. One of the things that makes the novel so powerful (and Pat Conroy's storytelling in general) is how he can take any simple event and heighten it. Whenever I read a Conroy novel, I am always awed at how he puts feelings into words. To be honest, I read POT the first time about six years ago and immediately watched the movie. I was disappointed because of how much the movie left out. So far I have read the book three times and I have met Pat Conroy. (I now own an autographed copy!) I like the movie, but to me the novel is so much better. No contest.
I totaly agree. Have you noticed though that you could make more than one move and not repeat material? The only major problem I have with the movie is that they weakened Tom's character a little. In the book Tom killed one of the people and the Tiger killed the other two. Now I realize that they wouldn't have done the tiger thing on screen, but why take the kill from Tom?
_________________________________________
Is it time for my medication or yours?
You make a great point, kharabear. But in this day and age of film-making, they could easily have used the tiger during this scene.
I saw the film before reading the book, and am glad it wasn't the other way around. Normally, I advocate filming a literary adaptation as accurately as possible. However, it would hardly be rational to film this great novel in its entirety, and the most disturbing scenes (such as the rape of the young boy) simply cannot be filmed as depicted in the book.
Pat Conroy is one of the most incredibly gifted English-language writers of our time. His utilization of English vocabulary is incredible and vast, such as is uncommon in literary works today.
["It’s never too late to do the right thing."]
I loved the movie, but like it's been said so many times already...the book gets so much more into the story....the reason that they are such a psychiatrically challenged family.
This is a logic free zone:
Use of logic will be met with uncomfortable silences
The book will change your life, and make you hate the movie. I read the book first (I'm a huge Pat Conroy fan), and couldn't even finish the film.
shareI JUST finished the book 20 minutes ago. It's brilliant, and definitely superior to the movie.
Having said that, there's no way the movie could have captured everything in the book. The book is so dense and lush--it would be a 12 hour movie! As I was reading the book, I recognized many ways that the movie remained true to the novel. I think the adaptation for film was really good compared to other adaptations.
But, the book reigns supreme. Where the movie is more of a love-story, the book is Tom's story. It's hilarious and gut-wretching and it makes you think. Can't say enough about it--my new favorite.
Honestly, how often is the movie adapted from the book ever actually better then the book it was adapted from? There is a reason certain books are choosen to be made into motion pictures.
shareYeah, if you enjoyed the movie and you like to read, then you're going to like the book.
It's not fair to compare the movie against the book or the book against the movie, because they're two completely different mediums. Just because something is based on something else doesn't mean it's suppose to be the same exact thing. If any one disagrees with that, then they're more than likely not going to be able to understand the book any ways and give some jaded opinion, since it's quite popular, especially among city elitist, to always assume a book is better than it's film counter part.
Michael
City elitist, those that think, because they live in the city, it allows them to drink bad coffee and criticize public smoking.
You need to read the book. There are few similarities. I saw the movie and read the book next. Then, the movie disappointed me. The rapists were killed by the tiger. It was too violent to portray on film, so they had Luke shoot them instead. In the book, the backgrounds of Sally and Tom are furter revealed. They meet in college when they are rejected by their fraternities and sororities. He becomes the star football player and they are the college golden couple. Very good book. Weak movie.
shareI read the book awhile ago and absolutely loved it. I was crying at the end even though I knew what happened. I also wrote a paper on it for English class. Personally, I think Barbra Streisand did an amazing job with the movie because it is a long book and as she said in an interview, if she had done the whole book it would have had to been a mini-series. So, I ended up loving both.
Lorelai:The government will close that day.Barbra Streisand will give her final concert... again.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Also, in the book, the characters are older when the attack occurs (late teens, maybe they've just graduated from high school) which makes Tom's feelings about it even more intense -- it would be more difficult to accept that he "couldn't do anything about it" as a 17- or 18-year-old "young man" than as a 13- or 14-year-old who was clearly still a boy. On top of that, I seem to recall that Tom and Lowenstein were in their mid/late 30s in the book (say 36 or 37), while the actual ages of Nolte and Streisand make the characters appear to be in their late 40s. So in the movie, the time period between the Callenwold event and Tom's sessions with Lowenstein would appear to be about 35 years, while in the book, the elapsed time was more like 20 years or less.
I remember that it took me a couple of chapters to get into the book, but then I couldn't put it down. For some reason, I pictured Susan Strasberg in the role of Lowenstein, who I think was described as having dark hair and not looking particularly "ethnic."
Yeah, when I read the book, I totally could NOT picture Babs as Lowenstien while reading; I did, however, picutre Nick Nolte as Tom. That was decent casting IMO.
sharethe book is very worth reading. the book is better than the movie (although the movie is good too).
share