Lifetime Book Club discussion
Flowers in the Attic: Movie
>
Discussion 8: For you, what is the most unexpected difference between the novel and the remade film?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tiffany
(new)
Jan 14, 2014 10:17AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
The book was intense, believable and kept you coming back for more, the movie just was horrible. They gave the mother to easy of a way out. They didn't show how insane the grandmother was before she died. I thought the movie was a complete waste of time and when my husband and I saw it in the theater, more then half the audience was gripping about how unjust they did the book by making such a piece of garbage.
I loved the book but found the movie lacked half the depth that the book had. Yes some people might say the book was demented (even I have to admit there was a lot of shock factor) but I feel the movie downplayed the parts that made the book stand out and did not catch the spirit of the characters.
I have not seen the lifetime movie of Flower in the Attic but I did watch the old one. I the book was amazing but the old movie took out and changed so much!!! I was disappointed. I am ready to finish this discussion once I see the lifetime movie tomorrow.
For me its what they did in the end (view spoiler) I really didn't see the need in totally changing the aspects of their escape. I also didn't see the need in tarring Cathy's hair AFTER they had been starved instead of before, what purposed did that serve?
The remake was better than the older version, but it still did not do the book justice. The one who played the mother was not convincing enough. The changes made to key scenes to downplay certain contraversial parts that were what made the book great was a bad move. The ending was changed to I guess add more drama, but it did nothing whatsoever for the film.
It seems that the books are always better then the movies. I like the ending of the movie from late 80's.
The movie was too fast paced. Yeah, I know they had to cram it into a certain time frame but it just went too quick. Also, I didn't care for Heather Graham in this one. I think she's better suited to roles like she had in Austin Powers. Her acting was stiff and not a very convincing portrayal of Corrine's character. I also think they should have done much more with the whole Cathy/Christopher thing instead of downplaying it. Yes, incest is controversial & yeah, Lifetime may have caught crap from some viewers if they had done more. But I also think the possibility of actually seeing the brother/sister dynamic actually shown and done well is why the majority of viewers were drawn to the remake in the first place. The incest thing is largely what drew so many to the book in the first place. It had shock value and it was utterly fascinating; like a train wreck. You want to look away but you can't.
I thought Heather Graham was great as Corrine. She had an almost unhinged quality that was perfect and her big eyes are so expressive that she did well in her transformation from a loving mom to a greedy heiress and she is beautiful enough to carry off Corrine's character. This version was much better then the original movie. But some things that were altered from the book and really annoyed me are as follows.1. Cathy's hair. In the book it is supposed to be long, to her waist almost and think, gorgeous, beautiful and blond. The actor that played Cathy's hair was nothing like that it. It was shouilder length, frizzy and pale. This really bothered me as Cathy's hair in the book is mentioned over and over and plays a key role in later scenes.
2. The whole hair tarring, cutting scene. In the book this is a pivotal moment in Chris and Cathy's relationship. First Chris refuses to cut or let the grandmother cut one hair off Cathys head. Then when the grandmother sneaks in and tars her hair Chris is overcome with guilt and shame and desperation. He spends hours and hours trying to rescue her hair. And he does. He only cuts the front part and saves most of her hair which she hides from the grandmother with a scarf. In the movie Chris can't save her hair. He cuts it all off, super short. The reason it's a big deal is that in the book this is when Cathy and Chris's first big trauma occurs pitting them together against the world with only each other for comfort and rescue. When they go through that and Chris saves her hair the relationship between them changes forever. And the movie version does not convey all that in the least.
3. The starvation punishment due to Cathy and Chris's sin and defiance in not cutting her hair. In the book they are starved for two weeks after Cathy's hair is tarred. They all get weak and the twins so much so that Chris is forced to feed them his own blood to give them nourishment and he and Cathy are prepared to eat raw mice right before the grandmother finally begins to feed them again. In the movie this is barely touched upon at all. Cathy mentions something about rationing their food and the twins not looking too good. That's it. No blood sucking which is a big part of the horror of their punishments and time at the mercy of the grandmother.
4. The twins. In the book they are 4 years old when they enter the attic and small for their age. They only grow one inch in the attic in the over three and half years of captivity and weigh only about 30 pounds by the end and are sickly looking with big haunted eyes. In the movie the actors playing the twins were at least 8 years old and very healthy, robust, large children. The boy didn't have blond hair even, it was light brown. And they never changed. They never looked unhealthy. Even in the first movie they put shadows under the eyes of the twins but in this version not at all. It was disipointing becuase one of the biggest tragedies and cosequences of Corrine's actions is the twins not growing and devoloping as normal children do due to no sun or fresh air, not to mention the arsenic posioning.
5. The incest. In the book Chris rapes Cathy. And they are fighting their attraction to each other the whole time knowing it is wrong. In the movie they made it seem like a romance and Cathy and Chris willingly sleep with each other.
6. THe ending was different slightly in the way that they escape and with the grandmother confronting them at the end, which does not happen in the book. This was done to add drama to the movie I am sure and did not detract in my opinion from the main plots and themes of the book enough to be a bother me too much.
Basically, I think they focused on the incest, making it into a romance to apease the fans who hated the original movie which avoided the incest theme altogether for the most part. But, in doing so they missed some of the other big elements and tragedies of the book. Still, I liked it and feel it did the story much more justice then the 80's movie version.
I didn't care for this remake. Thinking that the original film leaned more towards the book..They changed way too many of the key points in the book. Thinking the main thing that bothered me was that Chris didn't lift a medical book in the movie nor was it mentioned at all;which was a MAIN point in the book. That is how they found out how Cory and the mouse died. Thinking that they are not going to make a sequel to this one..Which I was hoping that they would do a series for all the books..Highly dissapointed.
Jennifer wrote: "I didn't care for this remake. Thinking that the original film leaned more towards the book..They changed way too many of the key points in the book. Thinking the main thing that bothered me was th..."They already announced they are going to make Petals on the Wind
I guess they could tie Chris wanting to be a doctor in there...but people that have read the series, know that he wanted to be one in Flowers In the Attic...I think that they just cut out alot of important parts that tie the series together.
The remake was better as much as it could be for a hour and half including commericals. But i agree that it was fast paced,missing key points changing the excape plan, the fact that cathy was raped by her brother nothing much to do w the twins in movie. And cory in new movie didn't really look or remind me of cory in the book(80 casting of cory was better).the setting of foxworth hall wasn't like I pictured it(80 setting was better other then the bars on the windows)how cathy talks(the new cathy)had a flatness to her voice... heather graham wasn't a great choice for corrine and the grandmother was taller(the actress who portrayed her did a great job... thou.didn't get the impact of them being nearly stavrved and the tar in hair was after they got food....and cathy also got beat bc she screamed for her brother didnt show that. When she was barely dressed in movie trying on a bra?in book she was completly naked but I understand that change..... that actress is only 14 &its lifetime...they did do a overall better job trying to stick to the book but honestly its really hard to make a movie from a book....
Jennifer wrote: "I didn't care for this remake. Thinking that the original film leaned more towards the book..They changed way too many of the key points in the book. Thinking the main thing that bothered me was th..."The only thing I saw was in beginning when the dad was there and giving presents to the kids he gave him a stethoscope. very subdue Hint but nothing else mentioned.
Shyla wrote: "I thought Heather Graham was great as Corrine. She had an almost unhinged quality that was perfect and her big eyes are so expressive that she did well in her transformation from a loving mom to a ..."I agree with everything Shyla wrote here! I was gonna write a version myself, but I think she picked the EXACT things that bothered me the most, too!
ESPECIALLY the role that Cathy's hair played in the book. Very disappointed that the movie girl did not have a wig or extensions, something! it distracted me al most the time I was watching.
Debbie wrote: "Shyla wrote: "I thought Heather Graham was great as Corrine. She had an almost unhinged quality that was perfect and her big eyes are so expressive that she did well in her transformation from a lo..."I know! The hair was the biggest problem for me as well. I watched with a few friends and one had not read the book ever. She could not understand my frustration at the hair issue...but it plays such a big role in the book!
Ashley wrote: "The movie was too fast paced. Yeah, I know they had to cram it into a certain time frame but it just went too quick. Also, I didn't care for Heather Graham in this one. I think she's better suited ..."agreed!
I thought Heather Graham was wonderful as Corrine, particularly in the beginning. Her eyes were very expressive and she was very much like I imagined her in the books. The rest of the children seemed paler and not as golden as they were described in the books. I was a bit disappointed in that.
Generally, this was fairly true to the book. I certainly feel it could have used about another hour (hello, mini-series!) at least to get in more information, and to make the transition from "this is only going to take a few weeks" to "holy moly this is taking years" less abrupt.
The relationship between Cathy and Christopher was romanticized, and it shouldn't have been. That was part of what was so shocking and fascinating about the book. They seemed close, but not as close as they were described as being towards the end. And I didn't see the need to change the ending of the book and their escape at all. Perhaps it was more dramatic, but it wasn't necessary. That's what I enjoyed about the book so much; the story was dramatic and the ending was strangely quiet. They slipped away as quietly as they came and I think the writers of the script missed an opportunity to show that.
Overall, thank goodness this was better than the 1980's movie. That stinker really upset me, and this was considerably more satisfying.
I was extremely disappointed in the movie. Flowers in the Attic was the 1st V.C. Andrews novel I read over 20 years ago and I was captivated from the 1st sentence. The movie didn't do the book justice. It was shallow, the true story was not told. There was so much left out.
I felt the remake did the book better justice than the film adaptation from the 80's. The key points throughout the novel were left in the film, which I appreciated but it seemed to jump too quickly from one scene to the next -- I also didn't like how Carrie and Cory's roles were downplayed. I agree that Chris and Cathy's relationship was romanticized when it shouldn't have been. Their relationship developed due to years of abuse and being socially starved... however, I was glad the scenes of Chris peaking on her naked were left out of the movie. The ending of the movie also moved a lot quicker than it did in the book. It skipped a lot of the planning and desperation the kids went through before they finally got away.
but! this is Lifetime we are talking about!!!!! I remember staying up toll like 1 in the morning to finish a 3 1/2 hour movie! they could have made it longer to appeal to the book! oh well...it was better than the old one I guess
