Thoughts on Forrest Gump?

Submitted by Purple1829 t3_1262keg in books

I just finished Forrest Gump after reading it on a whim despite the reviews being horribly negative on goodreads (oddly enough the overall rating wasn’t bad, but nearly every review was horrible).

I know there is some problematic language in it, but it felt of the time and specifically of the time for someone who was a self described “idiot” simply mimicking words and descriptions others had used. His actual feelings and statements about the same subjects were complimentary and typically non-judgmental.

I personally have never thought the movie version was an all-time great film or anything. I enjoyed it, but it’s clear that the book and movie should be seen as two separate pieces of work, given how much liberty was taken with the source material.

I listened to the audiobook and I think the narrator really helped as I don’t like reading stories that are intentionally written in an accent.

Anyway, just curious about others thoughts on the book.

23

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Dana07620 t1_je78ut6 wrote

That it's an instance of the movie being better than the book. For all its comedic moments, the movie had a lot of heart. While the book was comedy and the moments got unbelievably ridiculous when it hit the space scene.

22

Purple1829 OP t1_je793tj wrote

I think that’s kind of what I enjoyed about it. The movie was ridiculous as well, just more grounded. I kind of liked how insane it got toward the end.

Maybe I liked the book more because I didn’t like the movie as much as others. I thought the book was hilarious

5

Dana07620 t1_je7ax39 wrote

You know that he wrote a sequel?

And you never have to worry about it being made into a movie. Winston Groom never wants to be associated with a financial failure again. FG wasn't a financial failure, but the studio claimed it never made money in order to cheat Groom. It's called Hollywood bookkeeping and they've used it to cheat many people. (Poor David Prowse [Darth Vadar] would regularly get letters telling him how The Return of the Jedi still hadn't made any money.) In this case, they screwed themselves out of the sequel because Groom won't license the book because of how they cheated him with the first movie.

9

Purple1829 OP t1_je7b6yr wrote

Hollywood Accounting is such bullshit.

Did you read the second one? I saw it was rated much lower so hadn’t planned on checking it out.

3

FireLucid t1_je7ep9r wrote

I heard that he made it shit or crazy on purpose so it wouldn't become a movie.

3

TheChocolateMelted t1_je93a9s wrote

Gump & Co? Read it many years ago. The actual story itself seemed a bit subdued compared to the original. However, I'll immediately recommend it for the way novel Forrest refers to the Forrest Gump movie infiltrating and messing up his life, even meeting Tom Hanks at one point. Wonderful approach by Groom that I never would have expected.

You might also want to check out The Hundred Year Old Man Who Climbed Out a Window and Disappeared by Jonas Jonasson. Only read the first one (there's a sequel), but it's possibly even more satisfying than Forrest Gump. Lots of fun.

3

Dana07620 t1_je7bd8d wrote

I wasn't crazy about the first one. So, no, I didn't read the second one. But since you liked the first one, I thought you might like the second one.

1

chocoboat t1_jed8ukp wrote

While I hate that they did that, I don't think anyone was screwed by the lack of a Forrest Gump movie sequel.

The book is a kind of a mess, just more of the same adventures but worse and even more contrived. At best the movie sequel would have been forgettable, but there's a good chance it would just been terrible and felt like a parody of the original. I will say that Forrest creating New Coke was a good idea, that's the kind of thing that would have fit well into a movie.

2

OptimalAd204 t1_jeayiva wrote

The movie was so different from the book they are only tangentially the same story. If you read the book thinking it would expand on the movie, I expect you are disappointed. If you read the book expecting a comic spoof on American life, you were probably pleased.

1

UnspentTx t1_je7cqtd wrote

I was today days old when I learned the movie Forest Gump was based on a book 😳

6

Dana07620 t1_je7dvlf wrote

Forrest Gump. Two "r"s. Named for the Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest.

5

UnspentTx t1_je7e4qr wrote

Ah! Stupid autocorrect ⌨️ I'm leaving it as evidence of my shame 😆

7

jstnpotthoff t1_je7bitc wrote

It was one of the worst books I ever finished (along with Tell All by Chuck Palahniuk). I can only imagine that the audio is what saved it.

3

Purple1829 OP t1_je7byac wrote

The audio was told in a very old man from Alabama tone. I honestly don’t know if I could have read the full book because of the writing style

2

Federal-Panic-5843 t1_je7fvnq wrote

I loved them both, and I agree that they should just be considered two separate stories.

2

chocoboat t1_jed84wu wrote

The book has charm, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as the movie. It really makes you notice every bit of how ridiculous and contrived Forrest's life story is.

The movie might just be the best adaption of a novel that was ever made. It does an incredible job of portraying these events as something that just -might- be remotely plausible, and keeping you entertained enough that you don't stop and think about it. They knew exactly what to get rid of (astronauts and cannibals were so unnecessary), and exactly what changes to make to Lt. Dan and Jenny to complete their stories in a more satisfying way.

If you hired 100 other filmmakers to adapt that book into a movie back in 1994, I doubt any of them could have made a movie that turned nearly this well.

2

pedalpusherz t1_je7qpwh wrote

I read the book eons ago and enjoyed it so much I haven't seen the movie. Could not envision Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump. I understand they should be viewed as two separate stories, but still can't get there.

1

Purple1829 OP t1_je7r4we wrote

The movie painted Forrest as basically infallible. Any mistake he made was solely because of his condition. In the book, he was a much more flawed character. His relationship with Jenny was basically a complete flip and I really don’t like the direction the movie took after reading the book.

3

markireland t1_je8shup wrote

The movie makes fun of the times, the book makes fun of America.

I thought the book was funny. I still can not believe the movie beat Shawshank Redemption at the Oscars.

1

Tanagrabelle t1_je9xt78 wrote

Now I want to listen to the audiobook, too!

Very nearly every book made into media might as well be completely different stories down to the bleeping reversal of the actual point.

I recently watched White Noise. Then I read the book. Then I watched the movie again and I was so happy, because they stuck very close and worked ways to include much that did not happen in dialogue but was described in the book! They did leave out, as far as I know, one emotionally important bit of the story, and severely altered another. The former, though, wasn't necessary. The latter probably they felt wouldn't sit well the way it was.

1

Purple1829 OP t1_jea34ui wrote

Oooh I’ll have to check that out. I really liked White Noise when I watched it back in the day.

2

BigLadderz t1_je9yu36 wrote

Saw the film first and do think it's a cracker. One of my favourite films. Now read the book about 10 times. I absolutely love it. So funny. The character is marvellous and the people he meets are absolutely the best. The sequel is great too, Gump and co.

There's a great Bollywood film of this book called Laal Sing Chada. Wonderful stuff

1

Regular-Year-7441 t1_jea8558 wrote

Crappy books make good movies and great books make crappy movies

1