MovieChat Forums > Annihilation (2018) Discussion > If you read the book first, how did you ...

If you read the book first, how did you feel about the film?

posted 7 years ago by Sandoz (2021)
5 replies | jump to latest

I had just finished reading the first novel (and so far, just that one) a few weeks before seeing the film. I was surprised at the number of changes made, not just omissions, but entirely new ideas and scenes were created for the film. It gave me a sense of disorientation while watching, which isn't always a bad thing (especially for a sci-fi thriller like this one), but there was also a part of me that was questioning whether these changes were made for valid reasons integral to the story the film was trying to tell, or done just because they were supposed to provided some thrills to keep ADD-afflicted audiences entertained. Such as the Mutated Bear scene (nowhere in the book), or the final machine-gun blasting of Portman's doppelganger alien for the big climax (also made-up for the film). These two specific sequences left me wondering if they were just discarded pages from an unused script for the Alien series.

The story in the novel is told in a first person narration by Portman's character that serves to explain a lot about her motivations so as to engender some sympathy for her since, on the surface, she doesn't come off as being very sympathetic at all. She's not even really in "love" with her husband, at least not in the sappy tickle-in-bed sense that they are in the film. But she is loyal to him, which is why she goes on the mission. And not to find a cure for him, either, because he's dead by the time she starts the mission.

The tone of the book also presents the foray into the affected area more scientifically than the Jurassic-Park type adventure it's portrayed in the movie. From having read the book, I was expecting a more cerebral, Terrence Malick-type of film that would have retained the narration by the lead character. Also, the book leaves the origin and intention of the contamination ambiguous and unexplained, which the movie discarded with it's extraterrestrial slant. But of course we all know how well modern audiences hate ambiguity, so that wasn't a surprise (need to justify your budget somehow).

The movie was definitely a different animal than the book was (in more ways than one, I guess). I'm surprised the author of the novel went along with these changes since he worked on the script with the director.

[–] msetc (7) 7 years ago

Yeah I agree with your assessment that the changes didn't really contribute to the story very well. It seems some concessions had to be made to the modern cinema audience or at least how it is perceived. The tone of the book is far more bleak and emotionally reserved and impersonal. The characters are referred to only by their professions and it's a much more mysterious and drawn out affair. I suspect that Alex Garland felt that this wouldn't play well enough to popular tastes. It was detrimental to the story, ultimately.

[–] Samwise (23) 7 years ago

I was disappointed that the "tower" was dropped from the story. That was some of the creepiest story telling I have ever read and I was looking forward to seeing it translated to the screen. The psychologist's hypnotic control also nowhere to be found. This movie really isn't even telling the same story as the book and I wish it had.

[–] Arghhhh (804) 7 years ago

Yes - I can't understand it. I get the impression they wanted to make a cerebral 'unhollywood' type movie but got cold feet and added stuff like the bear but kept some ambiguity as a sop to the original intentions. But it's just a mess; neither thought provoking or exciting. As for dropping the tower and the hypnosis...? They are literally the best two things in the book. Without them all you really have is a bunch of beautifully written weird shit going on. Crazy decisions all round.

[–] mobocracy (893) 6 years ago

I think the book would have been hard to film and that the resulting film is both true to the themes of the book and much more coherent.

I didn’t love the book, I thought the second half got too mystical and abstract.

[–] Sandoz (2021) 6 years ago

"I think the book would have been hard to film and that the resulting film is both true to the themes of the book and much more coherent."

Coherent...perhaps. It certainly made it easier for audiences to accept the film as just another alien invasion tale. And yeah, I agree--the story as presented in the book would have been more difficult to film; evidently the creative team for the movie wasn't up to tackling this challenge.
_______________

"I didn’t love the book, I thought the second half got too mystical and abstract."

Personally, the "mystical and abstract" second half of the book is what kept me thinking about the story after I'd finished it. Whereas I forgot about the film pretty quickly after seeing it.