MovieChat Forums > The Three Musketeers (1974) Discussion > Differences from the book

Differences from the book

posted 13 years ago by vonseux
7 replies | jump to latest

First of all, I think that all changes were made so the movie ended more polished and had a with a better flow. I just want to point some of them.

On the first duel, Dartangnan:
book: kills Jussac, who is a great soldier
movie: Jussac re-appears at the ending for a more dramatic climax

with the Bonacieux:
book: monsieur bonacieux ask dartagnan to look for his kidnaped woman
movie: dartagnan meets miss bonacieux right away and have sex with her

the queen:
book: gives diamond needles
movie: gives a diamond collar and a big combat happens

travelling to londom (biggest change):
book: every musketeer falls on a different place, dartagnan make it to londom after a fight with Wardes. Dartangan goes looking for them AFTER returning the needles to the queen.
movie: the three musketeers are attacked on the same place, dartangan fighs Rochefort, Planchet help the three to join Dartagnan at the queen's party.

also; Grimaud, Musqueton and Bazin are absent from the movie (the worst change)

[–] danhanegan 13 years ago

There's also the little detail of Dartagnan killing Rochefort in the movie. In the book they have an uneasy peace, and become allies in the sequel.

[–] imspartacus56 9 years ago

What version of the book mentions diamond needles? I don't remember that.

[–] AutoexecBatman 9 years ago

the queen:
book: gives diamond needles
movie: gives a diamond collar and a big combat happens

No, you're wrong about this, the movie got it right.

[–] BenignPillows 8 years ago

Re-reading the book right now, and what strikes me most is that the overall intrigue is very true to the book, but the characters are so different! Much more of a black-and-white difference between the good and the bad guys in the book. No snobbery, clumsiness or excess (well, a little..) among the chivalrous good guys!

It's to be expected, I guess, of a book from the 19th century and a movie from the 1970s.

I always loved that about this movie - the nuances in the characters and the social satire it added.

-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

[–] AutoexecBatman 8 years ago

No snobbery, clumsiness or excess (well, a little..) among the chivalrous good guys!

I don't know how you can conclude that. D'Artagnan is a hothead, Athos is a drunkard, Porthos is kind of dimwitted and Aramis is arrogant and vain.

On the other hand, there is only one character in the entire book who is consistently portrayed as being dignified and that is Cardinal Richelieu. Richelieu may be the chief antagonist of the four, but he is not a villain. He respects the Musketeers for their abilities, even trying to recruit D'Artagnan for his personal guard, he graciously accepts his defeat at their hands, and when he is informed that his agent Milady has been killed, he is secretly happy to be rid of her because she was always something of a loose cannon.

[–] BenignPillows 8 years ago

You have a point. Weren't the flaws played more up in the movie though? d'Artagnan I felt was more chivalrous at least (and less clumsy) in the book. Planchet as well. Anyway, I think the movie shows us the class aspect more than the book does, how the reckless behaviour of these "upper class boys" affects the common man - something they themselves never seem to notice or care about. The way the lower class/peasants have to accomodate their every whim, the way the Musketeers' horses are always trampling someone's work or belongings, the way the Musketeers treat Planchet, etc.

There's also the female characters - now they are black-and-white, and the book here shows its age. Milady is of course evil, but she's so memorable it's forgiven :) Constance and Queen Anne are idealized and put on pedestals, making them utterly boring characters.. I mean, Constance wasn't exactly shown as multi-layered in this movie, but at least she had a personality (and, while clumsy and objectified, was still resourceful).

On the other hand, there is only one character in the entire book who is consistently portrayed as being dignified and that is Cardinal Richelieu.

In many ways, yes. but not in the way he treats the Queen. Dumas is firmly on the Queen's side there, she is the beautiful, helpless victim shamefully abused by Richelieu through his manipulation of the King. It's implied that he was taken with her at one point, but was rejected, and that's one reason he resents her so much.
Here I really prefer the movie's more balanced version, where the Queen is shown to have a vain side (being frustrated about not having enough dresses to wear at La Rochelle), while Richelieu is never outright mean towards the Queen, and remains a truly interesting character.

-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

There's tons more changes than that. Dartangian leads a gang fight against the cardinal's guards, convinces Aramis that his love actually didn't leave him, all the servants are mentioned and "shown" in the book where as in the movie only Planchet is ever shown, and a host of other changes.

The movie keeps the same basic emotional story, but rearranges a lot for the sake of the medium. Still, it's decent, and I like it.