MovieChat Forums > Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) Discussion > Were you glad Mark's role was changed fr...

Were you glad Mark's role was changed from the novel?


I did not read the novel, only read its synopsis, and was upset that Mark was killed off in Sudan. I was so glad that was changed in the film: that bozo Daniel was hardly necessary, but Mark... it wouldn't be the same without him.

Did you prefer the film as it was, or would rather it followed the novel in respect to Mark's fate?

reply

Oh definitely not. Love Mark. Hated that book (never read it even though I was looking forward to it because of Mark) and it nearly ruined all the other books and movies. This moved saved it. I loved his happy ending

I hope, hope they never consider making that book into a movie. I wouldn't want to lose Mark. Ironically, I'd rather lose Bridget (which is highly stupid I know lol)

reply

Colin Firth was the only saving grace of a truly awful film.

reply

Colin Firth steals every film he does. And Mark is the brightest part of these films so without him - like that horrid book - they're just not worth it

reply

[deleted]

This movie is 10 years before the novel

reply

I thought they already did the 'dead but body unfound' bit in this movie, only with Daniel and not Mark, thank god.
Am def on board with a fourth movie unless they base it on the book where Mark died. Am never gonna see that one.

reply

How can people hate a book they haven't read? Mad about the boy is an entirely different story to the film, it's set probably about 7 years after. I didn't want to read it initially but decided to give it a go and absolutely loved it :)

reply

I did too. I also liked the new love interest and thought he was maybe more suited to Bridget being just a teacher. It was far more realistic

reply