"Fight Club" discussion : 5/26/02-6/01/02

[Morticia]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "Fight Club."

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are excited and we hope this works (we're open to any ideas of how to make it better).

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[theta]

All right, I'm WELL aware I'm going to be in the minority here, and I'm also aware this is an unpopular opinion. All I ask is that you read what I have to say COMPLETELY (I know it's a long post, sorry) and not just my thesis. Which is:

"Fight Club" has no artistic merit.

First, you really need to read the book, if you haven't already, to understand just how drastically David Fincher altered it and to understand why those alterations came not out of artistic choice but cowardice. Fincher didn't trust his audience and was too afraid of rejection by them. I'll explain in just a few paragraphs why I don't like David Fincher, and why I feel his artistic choices were mistakes, but first we need to deal with the novel.
"Fight Club", the novel, is inarguably one of the best-written novels in a VERY long time. In both subject matter and structure, it's progressive and an impressive display of skill, not to mention entertaining. It's everything the modern novel should aspire to and I think it will gain currency with time.

That very structure, however, can be a problem if you want to make into a movie that's easily digestible for the masses. You see, everything in the novel ties into everything else. What a character says early on in the story will gain resonance and further explain the mindset of another character later in the story. You can't just yank out anything you want and put something else in.

Which is EXACTLY what Jim Uhls and David Fincher do. The complete list of differences between novel and movie and how they're completely different from each other wouldn't be a post; it'd be a dissertation, and a lot of these changes don't seem to have been done for any other reason than they could. I'll confine myself to just one area; the ending/beginning.
The novel and the movie have cosmetically similar endings; Tyler pushing a gun into the protagonist's mouth while a bomb is below them. But damn near everything ELSE about this area is different.
In the movie, there's a defused bomb underneath a credit-card company building. Tyler is pretty much just waiting around for the other credit card companies to blow up, and then he's going to cap our hero.
In the novel, Tyler is actively keeping the narrator from defusing the bomb with the gun in his mouth. Furthermore, the building isn't even Tyler's target; he's blowing it up so that the flaming debris will completely destroy the museum that's right next door. Tyler says "This is our world now, and all those people are dead."
Already, you can see the character of Tyler Durden has VERY different motivations and where the movie plays him as some sort of charismatic hero, the novel shows him to be an out-and-out revolutionary, and I don't mean that in a positive way. Who wouldn't want to blow up a credit card company, especially late at night when it won't kill anybody? And who WOULD want to destroy a museum?
The theme of the sons resenting paying for the sins of their fathers is one of the many things the movie lost (intentionally, I suspect, can't bash those baby boomers!) in the translation. Our narrator is a lot less of a nice guy too, but one of the first clues we have that he might be closer to Tyler than we think is his rant about how he's sick and tired of having to flatten his soup cans and recycle. It's not his problem. He didn't do it. Why does HE have to pay?
The very ending is probably one of the more drastic changes. In the book, Tyler fails; the bomb doesn't work. The narrator is left alone, on the roof of the building, with Marla and the cancer support group trying to talk him down (he still has the gun in his mouth, after all.)
The narrator pulls the trigger in both versions. But in the movie, Tyler is killed somehow while the narrator isn't, and the bombs go off. There's happy music as the credit card companies collapse and our hero takes his love in hand, perfect Hollywood ending, while the Space Monkeys wander around confused.

The book ends with the protagonist in an insane asylum, coming to a realization that materialism doesn't work, and neither does a rejection of material so complete you reject yourself. He actually changes, something the hero in the film doesn't.
But in the book, the Space Monkeys aren't confused. They are chillingly aware of their chosen purpose, and they still venerate their leader. And they are still trying to bring Tyler's ideals into reality.

Leaving aside the fact that Fincher endorses conformity where the novel doesn't, one really basic thing about this ending bugs the hell out of me. The Space Monkeys, with their shaven heads, fanatic zeal, black clothing and terrorist tactics are obviously fascists. Chuck Palahniuk has publicly said the book is a parody of fascists in particular and fanaticism in general well before the movie entered production.
So why did Fincher okay an ending where fascists WIN? There's no reason for it, unless he's going for cheap shock value (which he probably was.) In the movie, Tyler doesn't fail, he's actively foiled by the hero. I just don't see a reason for this change; it's pointless and it's stupid. Whether you find it offensive is up to you.

Now, for the motive: Fincher is your typical Hollywood director, nothing more or less. What was on his mind was not artistic achievement but the gross, nothing more. He doesn't trust his audience to be mature adults but treats them like five-year-olds. That's why he went for lurid shock value and cheap laughs (rolling a big ball into a Starbucks, hyuk hyuk, whatta riot) instead of adapting the novel, which does have its share of laughs (there's one farcical scene that you both want to laugh and barf at in the book that I won't ruin.) Ultimately, this movie isn't a sign of life in Hollywood, it's just another SoCal swindle.

I could go on, but I suspect my point has been made and you can understand my opinion on this end of things. As I said, there's a HELL of a lot more, and if you want me to go further at length, I will, I'm always up for a good discussion.

Now, to the visual end of things. Visually, I basically have the same objection: it's cheap shock value, nothing else.
Tyler and Marla having sex is a computer effect. Why?
There are lots of subliminal Brad Pitts. Sure, it's foreshadowing, but it doesn't add much to the movie. Why the whole conversation about the duvet? The novel dealt with the same issues a lot more economically and even Fincher himself does so with one of the few good uses of special effects, the scene where the hero's apartment turns into a catalogue.
Also, Fincher has never been good with the whole "show, don't tell" thing and all the places where he should be visually creative, he isn't. The key plot twist is just basically panning over and there's Brad Pitt, in a chair he wasn't in before. Ooooooh, creative, Dave. The explosion in the narrator's apartment is prime for both good images and plain old humor value. Instead he just pans up and shows us a burning window. Later, we get to zoom in on his refridgerator's compressor, in one of many pointless computer-generated extreme close-ups.

All right, enough, I've gone on for far too long. I do like the acting, I think it's quite good especially considering their limitations. The cast is faultless and clearly having fun. I just think the movie over all is bad. I'll look forward to a good discussion.

[Agalloch]

Nice post, with a lot of interesting points.

I guess first and foremost I should say that I have not read the book, I've been meaning to, but haven't gotten around to it yet. So obviously I cannot make any comparisons to the book, but that is something I rarely do to any movie that is based on a book. For me, literature and film and two very different beasts and when you adapt one to the other it becomes something very different. No film can do justice to a novel that it is based on, because they are entirely different mediums. For this reason, I often judge movies on their own and try to make no comparisons to books that they are based on, what's the point, you know there are only going to be differences, and if you love one version, these differences only serve to upset. Like you say making a list of differences would be a dissertation, so what's the point.

One thing is that I definately wouldn't refer to David Fincher as your 'typical' Hollywood director...Alien 3 aside, when you look at his films (SE7EN, The Game, and Fight Club) these are hardly mainstream films and definately have a unique style. And he certainly has more of an artistic vision than some directors mulling about in Hollywood. I also think that he put quite a bit of trust in the audience. I certainly don't know any five year olds who would be watching and understanding this movie. As for the Starbucks, he's showing the members of Project Mayhem destroying a corporate coffee house and a symbol of commercialism, when I think of the top three symbols of commercialism in America, Starbucks is one of them, so why wouldn't he use this image, isn't that the point?

The ending...well, again, I haven't read the book, so I guess I'm just going off of what you wrote, though I wouldn't say that Tyler/Jack did not go through a change in the movie...at the end of the movie he finally reaches a balance between Jack/Tyler and is both of them at the same time now and able to choose his actions without relying on the other persona, that's a pretty big change I think. As for the gunshot to the face and killing of Tyler, it's a symbolic gesture, of letting go and accepting responsibility.

As for the visuals, well, seeing as this is a visual medium, and covering a story that has shocking images, it makes sense that we would see shocking images...to me at least. As for the CGI sex scene, I believe it's shown in that fashion to give you the impression that it is a dream, because that is how Jack/Tyler sees it in the morning, when in fact he later realizes it was real and they show a brief clip of him (Norton) having sex with Marla(non CGI). As for the duvet, in film you have to be able to get your message across much quicker than you would in a novel, obviously. The conversation of the duvet is symbolic of just how much unnecassary crap that has been created to serve to the consumers. What is a duvet, it's a blanket, just a blanket. I think this conversation gets this across very well. As for Brad just appearing a chair after a pan, it gets the job done and shows that Tyler can just 'appear.' Do you have a suggestion for another way to show this?

Anyway, I can understand where your coming from and respect your points, but I think your just a little hung up on comparing the movie to the book, which I've found in the film world can only serve to hurt your enjoyment of the two mediums, but that's me.

PEACE

Agalloch

[theta]

Another place I'm in the minority on; I feel it REALLY depends on the book if we're going to pull out the ol' "different mediums" card. If a book is very concerned with a character's inner life and what they're thinking ("Catcher In The Rye", for example), or if the novel is just very thick with ideas, subplots, etc. ("The English Patient"), I have no problem with alterations or pruning done in good faith.
I don't even have an objection to an "adaptation" that's nothing to do with the book, as long as its good. I'll note it has nothing to do with the book and move on, not a problem. It's when it's a bad movie that it gets under my skin.
This is what happens when you don't get dates in high school.

To be fair (and reading my post I see that I wasn't, entirely), Fincher is far from alone concerning this problem, and directors are rarely consistent. Stanley Kubrick was pretty faithful to "A Clockwork Orange", but not other books he adapted. Anthony Minghella actually made "The English Patient" intelligible onscreen (no small feat), and then inflicted something he had the nerve to call "The Talented Mr. Ripley" on us.

Oh, and I have no trouble with shocking imagery; it's just there has to be more underneath it. David Lynch, David Cronenberg, and Mr. Penis Drill himself Shinya Tsukamoto all have made films that can be disconcerting in their displays of gore, sex and combinations of the two, but they have always used it in service to a larger message or to advancing the characters. Used otherwise, well...you're left saying "So what?"

[slade]

I saw Fight Club before Seven and so I absolutely dreaded watching Seven. But, I was completely enthralled with Seven (you can look up the discussion of that movie to see my comments about it there).

So, then I ask myself, how can the same director make such a great movie (Seven) and such an awful movie (Fight Club). It's been several months since I watched Fight Club, but I doubt I'll watch it again, I so disliked it. I wasn't watching it with a critical eye, like I usually do for movies discussed in this forum, so I'll have a tough time providing "good" reasons why I didn't like it, but I'll try.

First, the entire story line was obnoxious. I believe the mind is powerful and can do amazing things, but this dissociative identity disorder that they tried to create with this character is so bizarre and out of the ordinary I had an impossible time believing the ending. Instead, of a "wow, that was cool" reaction (that my sister and wife had), I had a "wow, that was stupid and contrived" reaction. It just left a sick feeling in my gut becuase it was so unreal for a movie that was trying so hard to be taken seriously.

. . . . . . . okay, well, now that I think about it that's all I can remember. Maybe, I will watch this movie again (emphasis on maybe). I so loved Seven it would be interesting to just try to look for similar directorial moves in Fight Club and try to see why things do/don't work in Fight Club that did in Seven. We'll see how much time I have on my hands this week.

[SeanL]

Originally posted by slade
First, the entire story line was obnoxious. I believe the mind is powerful and can do amazing things, but this dissociative identity disorder that they tried to create with this character is so bizarre and out of the ordinary I had an impossible time believing the ending.

I too disliked Fight Club, but I've had a hard time putting my finger on the exact reason I didn't like it, so I've never gotten into any discussions about it.......but I think you hit the nail on the head there slade.

[Agalloch]

Yeesh, I must rally the Spacemonkeys to come and defend 'Fight Club.'

I suppose the story line is far fetched and difficult to swallow, but truth be told there are conditions just like this, it really can happen. Whether or not that helps make the movie any more believable...though it definately seems as though everyone here has made up their mind on this movie.

I'll try and spell out why exactly it is that I like this movie. First and foremost, and even theta agrees on this one, the performances turned in by Norton and Pitt are stellar, and these are two actors that I really like and like to watch on screen, Helena Bonham and Meatloaf were also very good. The second reason was I could identify with the character of Jack/Tyler...granted, I haven't read the book...but the speech about their generation, my generation, being the middle children of history, definately struck a chord with me. There have been times when I have absolutely felt this way and times when I haven't. I have no idea about the age or backgrounds of the other posters here, but perhaps this film and message has a greater impact on a certain target (though I could be wrong, you could all be just like me, and theta like the book, so who knows.) But those are the main reasons. I guess all I can say is I really liked the story and the way it was presented. I would really like to know what specifically turned you guys off to the film, if it was anything other than just the storyline.

You'll proabaly be hearing from me again. Though I like posts like this where people disagree, I can only imagine on the 'Shawshank' thread it will be an endless about of praise for the film (I loved it.)

Agalloch

[theta]

I'm actually 20, and I've read the book six times. I read it twice when I got it. For me the book and movie both pretty much distill how I feel about the baby boom generation, especially the 60s Survivors, who never seem to stop whining. I don't want to clean up THEIR goddamn mess, and that goes for environmental, cultural, economical and political, among other messes the bastards have left behind for us to clean up. To say that I'm unhappy that some of my paycheck is going to pay for designer water bowls for their cats is an understatement.
But the book and the movie come to very different places on this issue, although I won't lay out my opinion about that here. I think the book does come to a more reasonable and livable conclusion than the movie.

[MrSoze]

Greetings!

Hey all. 'Fight Club' is one of my favorite movies ever to discuss, so I appreciate all the great discussion already. Here comes my two cents, so to speak.

1) The controversy over the book. I have no problem admitting that I haven't read the book, but Theta isn't the only one who holds it in such a high regard- I know a ton of people who do the same. However, the opinion that you should even compare the book to the movie is simply misguided in my view. This may take awhile to write, so here's why.

a) The book and the movie are always written for two very different audiences. This is true of the best and worst adaptions from literary to film. First, writers are allowed to go into character motivation in the book by giving the portrait into the character's mind that a filmmaker is simply unable to do. You are reliant, as a filmmaker, on the actors and the dialogue to get across the motivations of the character on the whole. Because of this, you are just naturally limited not only in the faithfulness of the adaption, but in the scope that you can show, even with tools like the voiceover employed by Norton in the film. You HAVE to rewrite it, sometimes with a different point entirely (Although we are in disagreement about that as well; I'll cover that in a minute.) or you are doing a disservice to both mediums- you get vanilla adaptions like Harry Potter, where the director is clearly frightened to give us anything that would be even one iota different from the printed page. As much as I love Harry Potter, I can't defend it as a great film; indeed, it is a film without soul. Fight Club, like it or not, has a soul and is willing to stand up and say something, even if the message is off. It should be applauded for being different from the book if that is the result. Check out another famous adaption; Spielberg's best film, Jaws. The book is long, plodding, and boring, IMHO, because the main conflict, the shark, is shunted to the side in alot of cases because Benchley is intent on showcasing the intricacies of the politics of a beach town. Spielberg, on the other hand, drops all that crap and goes straight for your throat, putting the other town business in the background and letting it come out when it becomes neccessary to the plot, and it makes for a great film, due almost solely to its relentless focus. That's maybe the greatest ad for why the book has to be different from the movie.

b) Film is much more defined than a novel. The English Patient was, for a long time, considered unfilmable because of the pure density of the novel along with the free-flowing structure. Ditto in alot of ways for Wonder Boys, Curtis Hanson's great film. The way you describe it, Fight Club sounds much the same- therefore, the director has a responsibility to decide what to keep in and take out, due to the fact that, well, he's the fucking director, and that's his job. He has a much, much greater set of limitations to work with, and that stricter definition is tougher for film to overcome to be pure with the book. For an example, in my own opinion, of how not to concentrate on the right aspects of a book, check out American Psycho.

c) As with any piece of art, you have to judge it solely on its own merit, which you aren't doing. You're judging it in CONTEXT of your knowledge of the novel, something I'll point out when I talk about the thematic elements below. You can't do that and claim to be at all objective, because you aren't trying to be- you're judging based on the faithfulness to themes that were presented very differently in the book, which is inherently unfair to the filmmaker. Again, the filmmaker is responsible to make the best film he can, with or without the total adherence to the book's events. If you go into the film and come out pointing out all the differences between the book and movie, that's not judging the film for its own merit, but the film in relation to the book; therefore, your claim that 'Fight Club' has no artistic merit is intrinsically flawed, since you aren't judging it from an any type of artistic merit standard.

Okay, that should about do it for the book to movie thing. Now, on to the thematic elements....

Let me tell you a story about this movie. My girlfriend at the time was absolutely furious when we left the film, and her reasoning was that the marketing and the trailers were drawing in people who were totally unable to access the message properly. Indeed, we had a bunch of teens joking about starting fight clubs in the area behind us. We argued about it on the way home, and eventually she won me over. Simply, this movie should have been given the NC-17. I shock alot of people with that statement, but the fact of the matter is that I'd rather my kids see a piece of trash like Showgirls and laugh about it later, than see something like Fight Club without my supervision. The fact of the matter is that the movie presents themes that are difficult to comprehend for many, many people. You, obviously, are not one of them; I think that you can see the themes in Fight Club, but I disagree with the ones you've presented. Let's look at mine.

1) The Alienation of today's young male. I think the movie could indeed have said more here, but at the same time, the ideas that males of our society do have problems with where we fit in are really, really well presented. I always have dug the support group footage, and I actually am touched very much by Jack's interaction with Bob. Also, you have to consider what the Tyler character actually means to the overall story, especially on this topic. That leads me to our biggest difference of opinion....

2) Tyler Durden, Hero? Of course not. Fincher wasn't deifing Durden at all. In fact, the way you describe the book, it seems like the author chose the easier way out. It's easy to have the bomb be a dud, have the hero swoop in. That's not the case in this movie; he recognizes that things have gone too far to turn back. Far from being the typical hollywood ending, it's the atypical hollywood ending; the bombs go, Durden dies. Your statement that the facists 'win' is the one I have the most issue with. When Norton yells that things have gone too far, he means it in alot of ways. The movie is more of an indictment of facism than almost any other film- this is what happens with people who blindly follow. When Jack is attacked by his own Spacemonkeys, in blind devotion to their leader, it's the indication that things have proceeded to the point of no return. Fincher doesn't let up here. He doesn't give you the easy way out, and tell you that things are going to be alright at the end, because they won't. The hero won't come, and the explosions won't stop. That isn't a victory for the facists- that's a defeat for the human race. That's why Durden must die at the end- far from being a martyr, Fincher showcases him for the true con man that he is, but not until he makes sure we understand that there are consequences for our actions beyond that which we can stop at a certain point. Fincher was trying to make a point for personal responsibility, for accepting the consequences of our actions even when those actions are reprehensible. That's why Norton has to watch the buildings blow, and that's why the 'happy music' (which I thought was a nod to the end of Dr. Strangelove, myself) has to play.

Now, onto David Fincher, director. I've always admired the choices that he made in the movie, for this reason- he knew that most people weren't going to 'get' it, so to speak. He hid the themes deep enough that multiple viewings make them clear, but he does so in a way that is so subtle, so undeniably brillant, that I can't imagine attacking his directing style. If Fincher just wanted to make some jack at the box office, he had the world's number one sex symbol in Pitt and a great actor in Norton to work with. He could have come up with a million different endings that I'm sure would have pleased execs more than "Pitt dies and Norton watches the buildings around him blow up." You don't think that he could have sold the movie without the ending? He would have sold it easier with the ending without the explosions, but he plays it straight to his vision, which simply must end as it does. His directing style must be the perfect cross between frantic and Kubrickian, knowing when to go for the slow pan shot and the quick cut. Say what you will about Fincher, but he can set a mood for a film as well as anyone today working in film- I'll take him over a thousand Michael Bays of the world.

Finally, my main complaint about the film doesn't even relate the film itself but to the marketing of the film. I referenced it above, but the fact of the matter is that the filmmakers should have taken some responsibility for the product they put out and the people who see it. I think that art has great power in this country, and to paraphrase a super hero- with great power, comes great responsibility. The filmmakers and actors had none of that, as they shamelessly promoted the movie on channels like MTV and produced trailers that highlighted all the clever lines, not even preparing the audience for what they were truly about to see, and for the message beneath the surface of the film. If you get to see that message, I think the film is great, a masterpiece. It's pretty rare I say that about any movie.

By the way, theta, great points in your post. Extremely well-written; just 'cause I disagree doesn't change that. I'm only 24 myself, and I now want to read the book because of your post. I think that you and I have different views on the 60s gen to say the least, but I hope you respond in kind to my post on the film, as I'd love to keep the dialogue going on this thread.

Okay, outta here. See you on this thread later, or on Shawshank.

Yours in the Force,
Rick Poehling
Episode III is coming..... in 2005! Damnit!!

[Agalloch]

What he said.

Agalloch

P.S. Ya gotta love The Pixies.

[fuser]

Fight Club is simple one of the best movies I've ever seen for many reasons, first, as someone else also stated I feel very identified with the Narrator simply because of one line: "The things you own end up owning you", it reflects the sense of consumism on our society, specially with males between the ages of 25-30 that are single, away from home and earning their own money.

And about if the twist in the story is beleivable or not I've always seen Fight Club something like "possible" sci-fi, I mean, some things are really unbelievable but can actually happen and that adds to the shock value.

No one else has mentioned the incredible score that The Dust Brothers created for this film, it's awesome! I remember that when I saw the movie in the theather the opening sequence made me think that I was inside a club or a discoteque. I'll gladly buy a double-dip of the DVD if they add a DTS track and an isolated score track.

The acting is totally believable, I never saw the twist coming and I was very surprised!, it was until that the Narrator called Marla on the phone and asked her his name: "Your name is Tyler Durden!" that I accepted the truth.

Ï also read the novel before the movie and found the differences very amusing, like the fact that they made soap using Marla's mother fat...

Another thing I noticed both in the book and the movie is that the Narrator/Tyler never mentions his mother, only the lack of the father figure and his dissapointment in god... the line: "If you are white and living in the US then your image of god is your father" or something like that.

That's all I think of by now... let's see some more discussion.

[Naminator]

All right, let me say this first - Fight Club is my favorite movie of all time. I've seen the movie countless times, and I own the book, and have read it 3 times.

Now, let me get to what i want to say...

I believe the transaction Dave Fincher made from the book to the movie was the smartest thing he's done in his entire career. The novel is full with ideas, yes, but think about this - if Fincher would have stayed true to the book, ie Harry Potter, then this would just be some psychological tale with absolutely no plot. There were just SO many ideas in the novel that it nearly seems overwhelming, and it takes over the plot in the story, which is the most crucial point in film. Viewers don't want to be bombarded with thoughts, because that's not why they go to a movie. To have these concepts be brought upon in a professional manner, they need strong character development - something novels have the advantage for, compared to film. Film has to sacrifice character for plot, to keep the story moving.

Also, Fincher made another good decision by putting more plot development into the character of Tyler Durden. A key example would be in the car sequence, in which the narrator gets in the accident with the Space Monkeys. In the novel, the person driving the car is a mechanic, who apparantly is looked up upon by Tyler. When he suddenly starts blasting the narrator with these concepts, it seems retarted, simply because we haven't seen this guy before. We don't know how he thinks, and how the narrator can react to these concepts he suddenly shouts out of nowhere. When Fincher switched him with Durden, it allowed that connection to be stepped up a notch, since the narrator looks up to TYLER, instead of some no-name we suddenly saw tossed into the fray.

Finally, another point that no one mentions is the rather outrageous ending that the novel has, in which it totally destroys the movie, in my opinion. I can understand the connection of rather being dead than having to put up with Tyler anymore, but come on - the novel was just plain STUPID. I feel that the strongest ending for both the novel and the film would be for the narrator to kill himself along with Tyler, have a brief flashback of his life, screen goes black, and then he makes some kind of statement about the story - sounds a little simplistic, i know.

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

[Bjørn N]

I liked the ending of the movie better than the book as well. I did watch the movie first and then read the book because I loved the movie, so my bias would certainly be towards the movie, but I felt that worked better. But they still kind of showcase the differences between book and movie, and how a movie will kind of have to move faster and show things on a more superficial level without diving into the psyche of a character in the same way.

The book ended without any building being bombed, and it ended with the narrator getting trapped is a double sense. He is thrown into a psychic ward, which is of course a real, physical entrapment. Also, it reveals that project mayhem halts, but the space monkeys only pauses until their leader returns, even though project mayhem could work perfectly without him. But the narrator does also get well again, but space monkeys are working at the ward, giving clear indication that they still recognize him as leader, which means that the narrator is still trapped because he knows that if he gets out of the ward, project mayhem will move on again, no matter what he does, so he is trapped in another sense as well.

The movie on the other end does not end this way, I suppose because that would be kind of a downer, but also, a ending that worked quite well in the book, would take relatively much more time when it is clear the movie is ending anyway, so they needed a quicker finale. But with the buildings exploding despite the narrators effort to avoid it, there still is the sense of project mayhem continuing, so the narrator is still trapped by his previous actions, although not physically confined of course.

Therefore I do think the endings are not that different anyway, because the fact whether a certain number of building explode or not is kinda beside the point. This also demonstrates the brilliant way Fincher and the writers did translate the book to the movie screen, even though they had to gloss a few things over, change some things and take a few shortcuts, they still stayed true to the spirit of the book.

But of course, seeing the credit card companies get blown to smithereens still appealed of course

[renots]

Humble Opinions Follow

Books - meditation on characters/symbols

Movies - seeing and hearing, but not in reality, or so we think

Wizard of OZ - Both a book and a movie but not the same thing

Se7en - Walked out in 30 minutes on the theatrical run but did appreciate it when I saw the whole thing on LaserDisc

[following this thread' use of uncommon listing systems]

M) Blowing up Architecture certainly makes people think. nuff said

ô) One meta~message of the flick that I perceived was that normal life in the Edwards Norton's character's world was so dull and distasteful that his imagination, unfed by his initial real world experience, pushed him in such a direction contrary to his normative persona that the only way he could maintain relative[and very relative in the course of the movie] sanity was to split off his more extreme actions into Tyler and thus create a world his psyche could tolerate"All the things you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you'd like to fuck. I am smart capable and most importantly, I am free, in all the ways that you're not".

Ü) The whole movie appears to be a flashback the Narrator is having from the moment he is having a gun stuffed his mouth, you know the whole life-flying-before-your-eyes-at-what-appears-to-be-the-end-of-life-as-we-know-it. He is racing through his brain cells[title credits] attempting to grasp how he came to be in this moment{i.e. gun in the mouth}

&#9570)Life as the Narrator SUCKED["Look, no one takes this more seriously than me! That condo was my life, okay? I loved every stick of furniture in that place"]

&#8801) Life in general before Tyler/Narrator's revolution sucked. Personified by the use of human fat based soap, human eating human{or at least scrubbing with human}["If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one"]

x) So much so that he is able to recruit most of the US's operations personel into a mythic Dune-like movement [Members of Fight Club: [Chanting] "His name is Robert Paulsen"]

_) Narrator spent 2 much time on the Internet and lost his mind{but in a good way}["Did you know that by mixing equal parts of gasoline and frozen orange juice concentrate you can make napalm?"]


{puts on asbestos~free flame retardant suit and presses Submit Reply}

;0)

[tomdkat]

I'm NOT an expert of movies, by ANY stretch of the imagination, but I think Fight Club is an EXCELLENT example of "modern movie making" in that it has "current" content presented in a way we can ALL relate to (e.g. "Planet Starbucks"), the way the story was told was interesting (at least to me), *AND* I thought it was cool how they exposed *US* (the viewers) to things that THEY later discussed in the movie itself (splicing still frames in the movie).

When I first saw Fight Club, I had NO idea what to expect and I was literally blown away....

Excellent movie....

Peace.....

[renots]

"A terrible purpose awaits us, Mother. This vast organism we call humanity is about to reinvent itself from the ashes of its own complacency. The sleeper has awakened. Anything that tries to stop it will be crushed."

[Defiant]

Okay, I'm not reading those whole thread (I came in late and am pressed for time), but I have read the book and I like the movie more than the book because, well, I love movies. The book works as a book. A lot of things are juggled around, left, came back to, change, altered, etc. The narrative is very involving and I really love a lot of the twists they left out of the movie (Marla's mother's lips, the discover of a dead body [Bob?] in the garden).

But I like the movie more than the book because, well, it's more focused. It takes the really important stuff (most of it, at least) and molds it into a coherent 135min movie. I also have more respect for the characters from the movie. In the book, Jack/Tyler sets fire to his office and kills his boss and probably a dozen other people. And not only that, he almost gets Marla and a few of the cancer people killed (wait, how funny is that?). In the book, Tyler doesn't give a fuck about anybody except his own ideals, really. He's way too self-righteous and all about himself. At least in the movie it wasn't just about him and Jack, but him and practically everyone still breathing. Book Tyler wants to just destroy stuff, where Movie Tyler wants to help everyone and himself. And Marla just doesn't come off as adorable in the book.

At least...that's what I got out of it.

And as for the ending, the book's ending was cute, but didn't really strike me. For one, it's like Tyler/Jack is oh so smart, but forgets to mix the right chemicals in the bomb to kill himself. And the mental institution? Oh all places. He should've just died instead of being locked up. The movie's ending was obviously more commercial, but a lot more romantic. Jack takes responsibly for what Tyler has done, retains (most) of his sanity, gets Marla, and holds her hand as they watch the credit card companies go up.

The only thing about the movie I probably didn’t like was that, where it's obvious the bomb inside the van didn't explode (the camera zooms down the side of the building it shows the van in the building they're in, not another building) but they didn’t really explain it.

Besides that the film is funny, charming, disturbing, groundbreaking, and visually stunning. The book is too, but just isn't as strong.

[BsK]

From reading a lot of these posts, it appears that there are some strong and lengthy opinions on this subject which is great. I won't get into too much depth other than to say this...
For one, I really think that judging the movie on its own merit is completely warranted, rather than comparing it to the book....I will say, that by not reading the book, I can do so easier, but really we are focusing on the movie I think, the book vs. the movie is not of great interest to me. Not that I haven't read and don't respect the posted opinions.
After watching the movie for the first time in the theater, I left with a bit of a confused feeling, but after owining the DVD, I have given Fight Club repeated viewings which has deepened my experience and understanding of the intent of the story and movie which has been rewarding. This is a movie that gets better with repeat viewings, so I would encourage taking that opportunity for those that have seen it once and might not want to see it again....but to each his own.
The direction was great from the set design to clothing, to colors and the kind of "rage against the machine" theme. The fighting also added entertainment and humor...think of the picking a fight with a stranger task. The ending with the music coming on and the quick penis shot was also comedy....a job beyond well done.

[Slowcoaster]

I watched the movie but i havn't read the book, I really enjoyed the movie, it made me think alot of what i rely on and how i carry myself in my day to day life, i watched it 4-5 times over and i looked for problems and truthfully i couldnt find anymajor things, it flows smoothly there are a couple things though that i did notice, when tyler is trying to stop "jack" from disarming the bomb he is able to throw him around but "jack cannot fight back, this would be fine but earlier in the movie when tyler told him to hit him he could harm him and fight back, so thats the only thing i found wroing with it. All in all its probably my favorite movie it sends me a really great message and makes me try and live my life a litttle more freely of things.