MovieChat Forums > Needful Things (1993) Discussion > Differences Between the Book and the Fil...

Differences Between the Book and the Film (Theatrical Cut) SPOILERS!

posted 19 years ago by whitespy12
13 replies | jump to latest

The following is an incomplete list of things that I noticed have been changed and/or left out of the film:

- Many characters are left out completely, including Ace Merril, Sloopey Dood, Sean Rusk, and Sonny Jacket
- Many characters are credited (including Lester Pratt, Sally Ratcliffe, Myra Evans, and Eddie Warburton), but are are downplayed to the point where you likely will not even notce that they were in the movie until the credits roll
- Frank Jewitt does appear, but it is never hinted at that he is the school principal or than he loves child pornography. Instead, he purchases a signed copy of "Treasure Island" from a Gaunt (A likely reference to Ace Merril's actual purchase in the book)
- Father Brigham has been renamed to Father Meehan
- Nan Roberts has been renamed to Ruth Roberts (but is also one of the unnoticed, downplayed characters)
- Nettie and Polly now work at a diner instead of a sewing store
- Wilma and Pete Jerzyck now live on, and own, a turkey farm
- The signed baseball card that Brian Rusk purchases from Gaunt has been changed from a Sandy Koufax to a Mickey Mantle
- Hugh Priest's "Needful Thing" has changed from a foxtail to a high school varsity jacket
- Unlike in the book, Mr. Gaunt doesn't try to avoid Sheriff Pangborn until the end of the story, and actually allows him in the store and shares some of Nettie's pie with him
- Brian Rusk throws apples at the Jerzyck's house, as opposed to rocks (this is, surprisingly, explained)
- Sheriff Pangborn's dead wife and son are ignored entirely, as is Polly's dead child
- Because Polly's past is ignored, the prank that causes Polly to distrust Sheriff Pangborn has been changed from a letter snooping into her past life to partnered embezzlement with Danforth "Buster" Keeton
- Norris Ridgewick's "Needful Thing" (A Bazun fishing rod) isn't hinted at in the film
- Hugh Priest kills Nettie's Dog, Raider, by skinning it. In the book, he stabs Raider in the heart with a corkscrew
- The knife fight between Nettie and Wilma isn't held in the street, but in Wilma's home
- When Brian holds the gun up to his head, he is not accompanied by his litttle brother, Sean, but by Sheriff Pangborn
- Thanks to Sherrif Pangborn's quick actions, Brian Rusk's suicide has been changed to an attempted suicide (He is hospitalized, by does not blow his head off as he does in the book)
- As proven when Sheriff Pangborn looks at Brian Rusk's Mickey Mantle card in the aforementioned "attempted-suicide" scene, the concept that others see Gaunt's items as the junk they are (and not the valuables that they appear to be in the eye of the beholder) is ignored
- The epic fight between the Catholics and Baptists has simply changed to a fight between Father Meehan (Brigham) and Rev. Willie Rose
- Though Polly does questions what's inside of the azka, the whole spider thing isn't hinted at in the film
- Sheriff Pangborn is never "poisoned" by Gaunt, as he is in the book
- Leland Gaunt's tranformations are no longer present
- In the film, Pangborn convinces the residents of Castle Rock of the confusion and hate that Gaunt has created, and therefore ends the rioting. The rioting doesn't end in the book, and therefore Castle Rock is ultimately destroyed.
--------------
"Where's the 'john around here? I have to take a major leak." (perfect arabic)

[–] itlyb 19 years ago

Wow, that's a lot of changes! I would have loved to see a good spider scene, but then it would probably have gotten extremely cheesy (see IT).

I don't even remember some of the characters from the book you've mentioned.

Who are Sloopey Dood, Sonny Jacket, Eddie Warburton and Nan Roberts again?

[–] superturbo4 19 years ago

Well there is a 3 hour plus version out there, perhaps that version is much more closer to the Steven King book Needful Things than the DVD and cable/satellite aired version.

ST4

"He is one, we are three, it is the strength of three that will defeat him...together. General Zod"

[–] Sarah_Canfield 18 years ago

Who are Sloopey Dood, Sonny Jacket, Eddie Warburton and Nan Roberts again?

Slopey Dodd is a kid in Brian’s speech class (additionally, in the book, Brian is let out from school early because he has speech therapy due to a harelip, not because he has a cold). He (Slopey) gets a teapot for his mother, but decides to keep it because he likes it so much.

Sonny Jackett and Eddie Warburton – these two I muddle up, I think Sonny owns an auto repair shop, and he has a beef with Eddie because of a transaction. Eddie claims that Sonny screwed up his car and therefore refused to pay; Sonny claims that he fixed the car, then Eddie screwed it up, and Eddie is just being cheap… or something to that extent.

Nan Roberts owns the diner – in the book, Polly owns a sewing shop, not a diner, so they don’t work together. Why they had to change Polly’s business I have no idea.

Correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been awhile since I’ve read the book.

~Sarah~
Best IMDB Forum Ever: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/board/nest/45004202

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sarah_Canfield 18 years ago

Seriously, it really is.

I always think it's nice if you see the film first, then read the book, because you can always enjoy the film as a heavily edited version of events, whereas if you read the book, you spend hours waiting to see your favourite scene, only to find out they've cut the character you love, given the scene to someone else, or cut the entire sub-plot out entirely.

You'll find the book so rich in detail, and really enjoyable. I recommend it heartily, and with amazon marketplace and ebay, you won't even have to pay out that much for the book.

~Sarah~
Best IMDB Forum Ever: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0314331/board/nest/45004202

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Laura-Sperber 18 years ago

Very very true. I read the book first, and thoroughly enjoyed it. The characters were described in great detail and I was very anxiously hoping it'd be made into a movie and was thrilled when it was. Unfortunately because I envisioned the story so much from reading it, the movie was a real disappointment.

I'd love to see a miniseries or more accurate movie done of the book. There's so much to show, so many characters and sub plots, that I think a miniseries would work really well, like it did for IT.

[–] jbrandonhall 18 years ago

Unfortunately, if you see the movie first, you completely ruin your imaginations view of the charachters, the settings, the language and dialect...Hell, it ruins everything. I know that I will always be disappointed when I see a movie AFTER reading the book but honestly, it's worth it. With that said, I still enjoy seeing what somebody else's imagination produces by creating it in a film. I like to compare differences.

[–] godess1 18 years ago

Stalky cop sez: "I always think it's nice if you see the film first, then read the book, because you can always enjoy the film as a heavily edited version of events, whereas if you read the book, you spend hours waiting to see your favourite scene, only to find out they've cut the character you love, given the scene to someone else, or cut the entire sub-plot out entirely. "

Nonsense. This statement is just silly, another example of how dumbing down happens. In this case it's as if you are saying "Take in the stupid version first, so you won't have to waste any anger at the film industry for screwing up an interesting yet complex plot." Because they will screw up a complex plot so that no one has to work at understanding it, and if you have read the complex plot, and understood it, and loved it, whatever - you will be angry.

Man, if you want a safe bet, always bet on the lowest expectation of human behavior.

[–] Sarah_Canfield 18 years ago

Nonsense. This statement is just silly, another example of how dumbing down happens. In this case it's as if you are saying "Take in the stupid version first, so you won't have to waste any anger at the film industry for screwing up an interesting yet complex plot." Because they will screw up a complex plot so that no one has to work at understanding it, and if you have read the complex plot, and understood it, and loved it, whatever - you will be angry.

Well, what's the alternative? Refusing to watch an adaptation of a book you enjoyed because it might not be good? Yes, there is evidence that sometimes a movie simply won't do justice to a Stephen King book. However, there's also three outstanding movies that have been made where nothing or very little had been removed: The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and Stand By Me; not to mention Carrie and The Shining, which are generally regarded as very good movies.

Perhaps debating this subject on the Needful Things board, where the movie clearly did not do justice to the book, is not the best place for an objective point of view. However, you did twist my words, I simply expressed an opinion on my preference of viewing/reading order and gave my reasons why this is my preference. I am simply the kind of person who likes to watch movies and debate them and you can only truly have an opinion on a movie if you have watched it in its entirety.

How on earth can one person's opinion on the order that they watch a movie/read a book be an example of dumbing down? I like books, I like movies, I like to see the differences, I like to see what works and what doesn't. That's all.

~Sarah~
“When you’re convinced of your own absolute superiority, you don’t need help from mere mortals like me. You can *beep* things up all by yourself.” ~ Martyn Taylor, The Hole

[–] Lady_Madonna 18 years ago

I agree and disagree. On the one hand, yes it is nice. For me, I've decided to skip reading Harry Potter and just wait till it's turned into a movie. I don't feel like going through all the pointless details of how Harry felt about his parents' death. I think part of it is that I've been reading more adult novels lately, and my boyfriend started reading Harry Potter out loud and her detail was so...childish, for lack of a better word. But I digress.

On the other hand, there is something you get from reading a book that you just don't experience seeing it. I hate seeing movies that have been made from books cuz it always pisses me off they change stuff. I realize they need to, but seriously...just read the book. It's worth the hours of reading and it makes you smarter. :p

~Aimz~

You talkin to me?

[–] Pandoraa 12 years ago

I missed the part where it explained why apples and not rocks.

There's a spider inside Polly's necklace?

[–] ricky_may1 12 years ago

Also Dan Keeton doesnt achieve redemption as the film shows. in the film he blows up Needful things himself and presumably Gaunt as well (Gaunt later emerges unharmed)

in the book, Buster is wounded by Ridgewick, and then finished off in a mercy killing by Ace Merrill (Who doesnt appear in the film)

Differences Between the Book and the Film (Theatrical Cut) *SPOILERS!*

Differences Between the Book and the Film (Theatrical Cut) SPOILERS!