MovieChat Forums > The Night Flier (1998) Discussion > Book ending is SO MUCH better *SPOILERS...

Book ending is SO MUCH better SPOILERS

posted 19 years ago by Dr_Julius_Strangepork
19 replies | jump to latest

*SPOILERS*

I can't stand it when Hollywood changes endings of books and ruins them. For anyone who didn't read the book, that whole seeing everything in black and white scene isn't in it, and Dees doesn't get killed by cops, the Night Flier warns him to leave him alone and Dees basically finally realizes he doesn't have a choice. I hate that the movie has him killed and then written up in the paper as the killer, how stupid. Also, the Jimmy character isn't in the book, it was created for the movie, although that change at least I could live with.

For anyone else who also read the book, especially before seeing the movie like I did, what do you think?

My blog & lots of meaningless Star Wars and other crap! - http://www.geocities.com/odlehermi/

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eer85 18 years ago

I think that the movie is better than the short story - and the idea of the character of Jimmy is very good.

Stephen King himself greatly enjoyed the movie - so why do you bother?

Besides, they would have to do something like that (adding new characters and scenes) in order to make the movie anyway: how could you stretch a 20-or-so pages short story into a 90 minutes feature? Also, there's no point (in my opinion) to do a movie which is 100% like the novel.

Everybody hails to "The Shining", which is rather different than the book. Even "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy doesn't stick to the page.

One movie that sticks (supposedly - despite adding new scenes for Hopkins) rather close to the original novel is "Red Dragon" - and it's terribly mediocre. Especially if compared to "Manhunter", which takes a lot of liberties from the story.

[–] Bobryshev_777 17 years ago

I think the ending had to be different from the book. The reason for this is because of the way Migual Ferrer had portrayed the character of Dees. Based on what I'd seen up until that point, I wouldn't have been convinced at all that someone like Dees would just suddenly give up and let the vampire walk away.
Ok, maybe after 28 minutes or however long the short story would've lasted, it may seem plausible to give in. But no way should the main character suddenly do that after 85 minutes.

Shame more people haven't replied to this thread. It's always a good debate discussing film changes from original stories.

[–] Evil_Flip 17 years ago

I like the movie ending and since I haven't read the book (it's still on the shelf) I actually thought this was the original (book) ending, as most of Kings stories end rather 'bad' (meaning; not good for the lead character). Usually I'm bothered when they end with a hollywood ending (the evil is defeated) and it's obviously not the way king had written it.
not to mention that I loved the irony of the fact that the reporter did reach the front page.

[–] keiser_shoese 17 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...there's no point (in my opinion) to do a movie which is 100% like the novel.

Everybody hails to "The Shining", which is rather different than the book. Even "The Lord Of The Rings" trilogy doesn't stick to the page.

One movie that sticks (supposedly - despite adding new scenes for Hopkins) rather close to the original novel is "Red Dragon" - and it's terribly mediocre. Especially if compared to "Manhunter", which takes a lot of liberties from the story.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I beg to differ here: "Fight Club" follows the Chuck Palahniuk novel almost word-for-word, apart from the last page and a half, and it rocks. On another note, James Ivory's "The Remains of the Day" features the dialogue from the novel "as-is", and it rocks. Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five", Ian McEwan's "Ätonement", etc.

You do have a point about short stories, though: there's rarely any "meat" in them to expand to a full story while sticking to the original concept. All the ones listed above are full-length novels, some quite on the hefty side, too.

--------------------
It's me, Gloria, I left my driver's licence on the table, next to the fruit!

[–] kinghereafter 17 years ago

I thought the printed version's ending was more distinct than the film version.

From what I remember Renfield let Dees go because of Dees' own bloodlust made sort of kinship between the two of them, they both fed off the suffering of others.

[–] SunburnM33 17 years ago

Bit late, but I've just seen the film. Empire recommended it, I didn't even know it existed until now, and me, a massive King book fan. All I can say is BRAVO. That is one of the best short story to movie adaptations I've seen in a while, 10 years later, and it's still a compelling story. One of the few (room 1048 included,) that has done a King short justice. 8 skulls :)

[–] papi88 17 years ago

the books ending sounds way better

i sw the film first

THEY DO RUIN THE BOOK SOMETIMES BY MAKING THE MOVIE ALL DIFFERENTLY OR ENDING IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY

CALL ME SNAKE-snake plissken
DROOG #60
THE WARRIORS

[–] Danielharris-627 16 years ago

What book is the short story in?

'Look...at...me...'

[–] JasonVoorhees-3 16 years ago

Nightmares and Dreamscapes.

"Never, Never, Never...Throw Chips At A Driver"

[–] ibeforej 16 years ago

Night Flier was first published in the anthology "Prime Evil: New Stories by the Masters of Modern Horror", and then in SK's "Nightmares and Dreamscapes" collection.

[–] rogergargantua 16 years ago

Just like most of the replies here: I also like the ending of the movie more then the book.

Maybe because I saw the movie first...then read the book afterwards. I enjoyed the little details about Dees and other stuff in the book. Like how his Nikon camera is as close as a woman for him, etc.

But the ending of the film was waayyy better. Maybe because the character of Dees was so much more persistent of getting the Night Flier and finally ended up dead....and on frontpage. Irony indeed

[–] Ennder 15 years ago

The ending pretty much saved the movie. Without the ending it has no point at all which would be fine as a short story but not so much for a movie.

[–] DeeeezzzzNutz 14 years ago

so the book says he had a nikon? funny, because in the movie he was workin with a canon.

[–] RobsBottin 13 years ago

The dream sequence was a major spoiler for me, we spend over an hour building up to the final act and the reveal of Dwights true form, then for some inexplicable reason the producers decide on a ridiculous twist ending which has nothing to do with the book. I guess they just can't help themselves.

P.S The scene where Dees is forced to drink Renfields blood is straight out of Salem's Lot.

[–] andromache3 13 years ago

I honestly couldn't work out the point of Katherine's character, especially as she's not in the short story. Is she supposed to represent the idealistic person Dees used to be when he first started?

I also preferred the short story version ending as Dees is forced to confront his own humanity in a way that the movie's ending doesn't allow. I do think Miguel Ferrer did a very good job as Dees though.

"When we make mistakes, it's evil. When God makes mistakes, it's nature."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Beatnation 9 years ago

The movie ending it's 200% time better than the short story one.

[–] watcher101 8 years ago

The movie ending is much better. It's not only scarier, it adds a whole new depth of characterization to Dees, Katherine, and even Dwight. Not to mention it brings Dees' motto, "Never believe what you publish, and never publish what you believe" into a whole new light. It sounds like the OP is one of those people that flips out over the smallest changes made when a book is adapted to the screen, even if it's an improvement.

Book ending is SO MUCH better *SPOILERS*

Book ending is SO MUCH better SPOILERS