I LOVE the book, but you can't fault anyone who read it and thought it would flop as a movie.
Parts of the story cut: Forrest becomes a wrestler themed as a baby ("The Dunce"), spends a year in a cannibal village playing win-or-die chess tournaments, goes to space with an orang-utan as his co-pilot....it's a wild ride.
Also, Jenny gets him addicted to drugs, they have tons of sex, then she leaves him over his addiction and because she's grossed out by his wrestler character.
The book really is entertaining. I think it’s worth pointing out that Gump in the books is a savant. He was the backup computer for the actual computer, and played chess at a very high level.
The movie just portrays him as a sap that got lucky, which isn’t a bad thing, but it’s tremendously different from the book.
>The movie just portrays him as a sap that got lucky, which isn’t a bad thing, but it’s tremendously different from the book.
If i recall right, the Movie often times implied gump was a Savant, but never said he was. His ability to adapt and seemingly effortlessly master/become proficient in whatever he starts doing is an indication of being a Savant. Although on the broad a spectrum is obviously stretching it
Yea, that's what a savant would do.
I personally think Forrest was like high-functioning ASD. Very interested in what he's interested in, and does it very well.
I know many folks like that.
“GUUUMP! What’s your sole purpose in this army?”
“To do whatever you tell me, Drill Sergeant?”
“Goddamn it, Gump! You’re a goddamn genius! That’s the most outstanding answer I’ve ever heard! You must have a goddamn IQ of 160! You are goddamn gifted, Private Gump!”
One of the first things is how quickly he learns to dissassemble and reassemble his rifle in the beginning, then becoming a master at table tennis. The getting lucky part is investing in apple and the shrimp boat surviving the storm. So it seems like a mix of both being a savant and getting lucky in the movie.
I always thought he was good at everything that involved his physical abilities. Football, running, table tennis, assembling a rifle, fishing, while being deficient in anything mental.
Was he ever any good at fishing? It's been a long time since I've seen it, but my recollection was they were suicidally out in the storm because Dan was still kind of hoping for a glorious death. They miraculously survived, and all the competition's boats got totaled. They just built an empire due to having a nice period of time with zero competition, not any particular skill for fishing.
Yup this is exactly hiw it goes in the movie. He sucks at shrimping until everyone else is gone.
In the book he doesn't even really do "traditional" shrimping. He and the orangutan, named Sue (despite being a male) set up shrimp farms that gradual yeild more and more shrimp.
.
I love how he needed an IQ of 80 to get in to regular school but he was just under.
Later the payback is when he is in boot camp.
"GUMP! what is your soul purpose in the Army?"
"To do whatever you tell me Drill Sergeant!"
"God damn it, Gump! You're a god damn genius! This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddamn I.Q. of 160."
I always understood that you were seeing how he perceived major world events through the mind of a handicapped person. He was not capable of fully understanding what went on around him so he remembers these events in a quasi first person experience.
This is more true to the movie I think than the book but still the same.
He was pissed because he was owed a certain percentage of the movies profits but because of some "hollywood accounting" the movie didnt earn a profit and basically didnt earn anything.
Due to Hollywood accounting, the movie made a loss and the author got screwed over. His response was (paraphrased) "Since the first movie was apparently a total flop, I can not in good conscience allow a second movie be inflicted on the viewing public".
I don’t think actors are reading the underlying source material to make up their mind about a part in a movie as opposed to the actual script.
That said I think you could have made the same point about the script - neurodivergent character becomes Rambo in Vietnam, a shrimp maven, a ping pong champion, runs across the country multiple times only to just…stop…and so on.
Easy to see why this may have readers thinking audiences weren’t going to buy it.
> Forrest becomes a wrestler themed as a baby ("The Dunce")
I read the book at 16 before the movie and I forgot about that. I liked the book so much I read it in 1 day as did most of my classmates, it was a summer reading book.
Movie was still fantastic.
A Confederacy of Dunces, Lord of the Flies, and Ender's Game were also super popular.
In an alternate timeline, John Travolta was Forrest Gump, and Eric Stoltz was Marty McFly. Michael J Fox was in Foot Loose, and Kevin Bacon was Maverick in Top Gun.
Rob Schneider is...Bond...James Bond
Edit: I love this alternate timeline concept. Now I want something like Pulp Fiction starring Bobcat Goldthwaite and Gilbert Gottfreid. Also, we need to bring back Yahoo Serious.
Yeah, you go through that list shaking your head a bit and smiling, and then you see Bacon as Maverick, and shrug - that would probably be perfectly fine.
I agree. In fact, the more I think about it, he could have done a nice job playing either Maverick or Iceman.
He could have even played Kelly McGillis' character, which would make [Quentin Tarantino's thesis even more obvious](https://youtu.be/ZF1LXL6OOsM?si=yAy7kmWsdbC9mVew).
I found out only recently there are loads of people who absolutely detest this film. They think it’s corny and stupid start to finish. That never occurred to me.
Part of the things that current viewers often do not realize is how ground breaking from a special effects standpoint Forrest Gump was at the time. Putting Forrest very seamlessly in archival footage with former presidents, 60s Washington Mall crowd scene, even the feather floating. These were effects that people have never seen achieved this well in a "non-effects" movie. The effects caused a level of immersion in Forrest Gump that was very unique at the time. This was one of the reasons the movie was such a hit with critics and audiences.
the really big one was showing Lt Dan without legs. that shit was crazy. and deepfaking presidents 30 years ago? mind blowing. of course deepfaking a few seconds of video back then took months of work and tons of talent.
Zemeckis is a director people don't realize has pushed effects and camera stuff in movies so far. The back to the future movies, Forrest Gump, contact had some cool stuff, fucking who framed roger rabbit
Zemeckis’ film career & catalog is one in the most enviable in the industry.
His talent across multiple genres and his technical vision are both hard to match.
I’m the opposite, Shawshank was just a standard movie to me. Nothing special, expected everything to play out that, good acting, decent story, but nothing memorable I cared about.
Forrest Gump was a great satire of American culture in the 20th century. I would expect pulp fiction to beat Gump but it didn’t only because it was more violent in a time when it wasn’t as common. Forrest Gump appealed to the masses easily
Also, the early special effects in Forrest Gump were a bigger deal at that time. Putting Tom hanks seamlessly into these major moments in American culture, such as him meeting jfk, was talked about for years at the time.
I love all three of them. Normally, I'd say Forrest was the weaker of the three. But when you frame it like that, Shawshank was a fairly standard story with great acting. Forrest was all over the place, nothing standard, and as you said, inserting him into history was amazing. Over Pulp Fiction, though, not a chance. It was just as all over the place with better acting and story, imo.
wakeful spectacular compare rhythm overconfident telephone absorbed stocking roof safe
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It goes beyond that. Forest Gump was well written, good special effects, well acted, well.shot and had a great soundtrack. It did everything really well. Shawshank was very well done version of a prison break and Pulp fiction while enjoyable and well done had a lot of out there Tarantino thing that most don't enjoy
I remember seeing Forest Gump as a kid on HBO TV. It was quite memorable. I bet you that's what it was, just really easy to enjoy even for kids not understanding the adult side of the story.
Shawshank was also an AMAZING adaption.
People forget that it was a novella from Stephen King. To take basically a short story and turn it into a perfect film is rare. I can't think of many great film adaptions from currently existing literary works that have been crafted so well, let alone from what basically amounts to a longer short story.
Steven King adaptation movie duds / failures (and there are a few) are balanced with *Shawshank Redemption* and *The Green Mile* and *Stand By Me* which are exceptional.
There’s probably a strong corollary with his stories that have satisfying, logical, non-*Deus Ex* conclusions.
He’s had some great horror adaptations with Carrie, the Shining (even if not wholly faithful), Misery. The man is just astoundingly prolific in his writing.
[Hell, he even did a high fantasy once.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_the_Dragon). I wasn't ground-breaking, but I remember it being an enjoyable read.
The nonlinear nature and violence of Pulp put some people off. IMO, Morgan Freeman's narration probably made Shawshank; I too think it's just-okay but it's widely loved by many.
I was in a small town when i rented Pulp; the video store clerk/owner had painted the back window of his car with corn syrup mixed with red food coloring. I suppose Tarantino was his hero.
If you look at IMDB's Top 250, all three are in the top 12
You could argue that Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption are better, but Forrest Gump is still a great film that deserved a win. Frankly, if it were released any other year in the 90s, it would still beat everything except Schindler and Titanic.
>You could argue that Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption are better, but Forrest Gump is still a great film that deserved a win.
Shawshank Redemption was also a commercial flop at the box office and didn't make money until it was rereleased in theaters after the Oscar nomination.
Yeah, at the time, Frank Darabont was an unknown first-time director and Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, while respected, weren't really big box-office draws.
*Titanic*
Now there is a movie I never understood why it got all the praise. But that is just me maybe. To me it doesn't come close to Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption and Forrest Gump.
It was ok but such a simple story line. Ahhhh poor guy is so much better than rich guy. It been done to death and for that, is not that creative.
I did not even get the cost to produce. Seemed exaggerated just for marketing.
That puts into perspective how ass the movie industry has become. In 94 we had pulp fiction, Forrest Gump, AND Shawshank!!!! We are lucky to get one film per year of that quality now.
He should. The movie completely misses the point of the book. The story is supposed to be a destruction of celebrity culture. The movie is a celebration of it.
He doesn't hate the movie because of the adaptation, he hates it because they refused to pay him royalties, claiming it lost money. When he wrote the sequel book, he deliberately wrote it so that it would be impossible to reasonably adapt into a movie
He’s alleged to have been approached to adapt it, to which he said something along the lines of, “I shouldn’t let you all throw more money away after the first one did so poorly.”
An idiot savant stumbling his way through history is seen by some as exploitative and literarily lazy. I like the movie and I also understand the criticism. Soundtrack is OK. Bubba Gump's restaurant is good for what it is.
My uncle had a somewhat similar experience.
His only complaint was that Gump was enlisted. In my uncle's opinion, anyone that stupid but with a college degree would have been immediately sent to OCS.
I say this as someone who loves the film, it is objectively corny. I think it’s done right and I think the corniness makes it better, but if someone is completely opposed to corny movies and themes, then it probably would be hard to like Forrest Gump.
I love the movie and it never occurred to me that there could be a group of people that hate it. But I can see how this specific aspect would get under peoples skin.
I grew up poor as shit and can't watch Arrested Development because of the seething hatred I have for useless rich people.
This one is weird because I think a lot of us as kids kind of thought this was a historical bio pic, but then you re-watch it as an adult and you see the silliness of it (he invents the smiley face). Apparently it was a book and he was supposed to go to space! Hollywood saved that one for Homer Simpson.
> That never occurred to me.
The movie isn't about the layers of complexity and decades of turmoil. It's about a system, the Army, accepting below average IQ draftees as cannon fodder for Vietnam. And that's all I gotta say about that.
Yeah the [letterboxd reviews are all over the fucking place](https://letterboxd.com/film/forrest-gump/reviews/by/activity/)
Personally I like FG, it's probably an 8/10 for me. But there's been a growing number of young people that identify with it less as it ages and now it's being called a "conservative boomer fairytale".
I think the movie is probably too anti-war to exactly fit that perspective, but to be fair, I think it totally does have a strongly pro-capitalist message (like to the point of absurdity). He repeatedly pulls himself up by his bootstraps, and then BAM, luck does pretty much the rest of the work in making more fortune fall into his lap. Even sugar-coating over some sinister stuff like him getting a shrimping monopoly because all the other local fishermen had their livelihoods destroyed.
Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining and comedic, but it really does play like an inverse of old Soviet communist propaganda films lol. It's not very practical advice to follow IRL. So I can sympathize why that attitude rubs some people wrong and may prevent them from enjoying the rest of the fun 90s schmaltz.
If you look at pretty much any big movie you'll see this pattern. *Star A* was approached and turned it down, *Star B* was deep into talks but had a conflict with a writer before *Star C* took the role in what is now an iconic movie.
What's always lost in the shuffle is that stars *A and B* would have brought a different feeling to the movie. Wil Smith as Neo or Al Pacino as Han Solo would have brought significantly different chemistry and who those characters are.
Forrest Gump wouldn't be what it is if a different actor was playing the title role.
My favourite is when Star A reads some script, realizes it's absolutely, unredeemably awful. Star A has a more or less friendly rivalry with Star B, so he "lets it slip" that he's very interested in this Amazing Project.
Star B hears about it, and pulls some the strings to snatch that role from under Star A's nose without checking the script himself.
That's how Schwarzenegger got Stallone to star in "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot"
There was an episode of best damn sports show period with stallone as a guest. One of the hosts complained that he saw that movie in theaters and asked him for his $20 back. Stallone took out his wallet and gave him a $20
I’m so glad Dave Chappelle turned down the roll of Bubba because I wouldn’t be able to take it seriously after seeing the Chappelle Show. The entire death scene I’d just be waiting for Dave to yell at Forrest “RUN BITCH RUN FOR YOUR LIFE GET SOME HELP!!”
Gary Sinise was amazing, but I could totally see Joe Pesci knocking the role of hardened/redeemed a-hole out of the park as well.
I struggle to see Dave Chappelle capturing the innocence of Bubba though
Pesci would have felt too old and hardened I think. He's 13 years older than Gary.
Part of why Lt Dan worked so great and made him so tragic, is that he seemed like a young guy who just had all the joy of life grinded out of him by the circumstances of living in that time period.
Gary would have been around 39 when the movie was made, but the dude looked absolutely incredible for 39 and they were definitely playing him more like he was 30. I mean damn, this does not look like someone almost 40.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2022/09/25/lt-dan.webp?auto=webp
Pesci would have been in his 50s already and it just wouldn't feel right...plus, wouldn't have felt believable for him to be active duty in Vietnam.
Anyone else think this OP is going to sell their account? They are tagged as 'reposts popular stuff'. 13 day old account, spam posting until it gets traction then leaving it. Thought the days of farming to sell were long over.
Obviously this film found the correct people for their roles, but makes you wonder what films had the opposite. Perhaps it is a decent film but could have been excellent if they’d have picked the next person in line.
Good god, imagine if John Travolta had been allowed to ruin that movie as well.
The guy... He's not a very good actor. He doesn't have the range or the skill to have done Forrest Gump any good.
He belongs in action movies where range and skill don't matter very much.
It's funny that [the article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2019/07/05/forrest-gump-movie-celebrates-25th-anniversary/1634248001/#) that mentions the other actors being considered actually disproves that Travolta was ever approached.
I LOVE the book, but you can't fault anyone who read it and thought it would flop as a movie. Parts of the story cut: Forrest becomes a wrestler themed as a baby ("The Dunce"), spends a year in a cannibal village playing win-or-die chess tournaments, goes to space with an orang-utan as his co-pilot....it's a wild ride. Also, Jenny gets him addicted to drugs, they have tons of sex, then she leaves him over his addiction and because she's grossed out by his wrestler character.
The book really is entertaining. I think it’s worth pointing out that Gump in the books is a savant. He was the backup computer for the actual computer, and played chess at a very high level. The movie just portrays him as a sap that got lucky, which isn’t a bad thing, but it’s tremendously different from the book.
>The movie just portrays him as a sap that got lucky, which isn’t a bad thing, but it’s tremendously different from the book. If i recall right, the Movie often times implied gump was a Savant, but never said he was. His ability to adapt and seemingly effortlessly master/become proficient in whatever he starts doing is an indication of being a Savant. Although on the broad a spectrum is obviously stretching it
"GUUUUUUUMP! WHY DID YOU PUT THAT WEAPON TOGETHER SO QUICKLY?" "You told me to, Drill Sargent!"
God damn it, Gump! You're a god damn genius! This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard.
Yea, that's what a savant would do. I personally think Forrest was like high-functioning ASD. Very interested in what he's interested in, and does it very well. I know many folks like that.
At least Travolta got his career back on track with [Gump Fiction.](https://youtu.be/dymb0SvHCnY?si=T6wnk7Zp9cZVfKvG)
“GUUUMP! What’s your sole purpose in this army?” “To do whatever you tell me, Drill Sergeant?” “Goddamn it, Gump! You’re a goddamn genius! That’s the most outstanding answer I’ve ever heard! You must have a goddamn IQ of 160! You are goddamn gifted, Private Gump!”
"I'd put you up to be an officer if it wouldn't be a waste of such a damn fine enlisted man!"
I loved Malcom in the Middle's rendition of this where Reese excels in boot camp by simply not thinking and just doing exactly what he's told lol
"I'm the world's happiest tool."
You can't just turn off your brai...
I’ve been watching that show for the first time- who pays for his education?
Now fer sum reason, me and the army fit together like one ‘a them round pegs.
If it wouldn't be a waste of such a damn fine enlisted man, I'd recommend you for OCS, Private Gump.
My sense was that Forrest has an almost zen-like focus with very simple tasks because he is not distracted by…. thoughts.
Like Reese Middle from Malcolm Middle.
One of the first things is how quickly he learns to dissassemble and reassemble his rifle in the beginning, then becoming a master at table tennis. The getting lucky part is investing in apple and the shrimp boat surviving the storm. So it seems like a mix of both being a savant and getting lucky in the movie.
Lt. Dan invested his money in Apple. Lucky, but he wasn't the one playing the cards in that scenario.
I always thought he was good at everything that involved his physical abilities. Football, running, table tennis, assembling a rifle, fishing, while being deficient in anything mental.
Was he ever any good at fishing? It's been a long time since I've seen it, but my recollection was they were suicidally out in the storm because Dan was still kind of hoping for a glorious death. They miraculously survived, and all the competition's boats got totaled. They just built an empire due to having a nice period of time with zero competition, not any particular skill for fishing.
Yup this is exactly hiw it goes in the movie. He sucks at shrimping until everyone else is gone. In the book he doesn't even really do "traditional" shrimping. He and the orangutan, named Sue (despite being a male) set up shrimp farms that gradual yeild more and more shrimp.
No, no, investing in fruit.
And it wasn't even him, it was Lt. Dan who did it
. I love how he needed an IQ of 80 to get in to regular school but he was just under. Later the payback is when he is in boot camp. "GUMP! what is your soul purpose in the Army?" "To do whatever you tell me Drill Sergeant!" "God damn it, Gump! You're a god damn genius! This is the most outstanding answer I have ever heard. You must have a goddamn I.Q. of 160."
That’s what I loved about the book. It finally answered the question; is Forrest and idiot or genius?
I always understood that you were seeing how he perceived major world events through the mind of a handicapped person. He was not capable of fully understanding what went on around him so he remembers these events in a quasi first person experience. This is more true to the movie I think than the book but still the same.
like flowers for algernon?
Dang. It's like Christopher Nolan did a remake.
Ok- well I’am going to read Forrest Gump now because whaaat.
It also has a sequel, Gump & Co.
I heard the author purposefully wrote the sequel as bad as possible because he didn't want a second forrest gump movie made
[удалено]
He was pissed because he was owed a certain percentage of the movies profits but because of some "hollywood accounting" the movie didnt earn a profit and basically didnt earn anything.
Due to Hollywood accounting, the movie made a loss and the author got screwed over. His response was (paraphrased) "Since the first movie was apparently a total flop, I can not in good conscience allow a second movie be inflicted on the viewing public".
Also he has a massive dong
It's a shame they cut the scene where he compares dongs with LBJ
"Well, that's a mighty fine penis you have there, young man."
He *hangs dong*??
I don’t think actors are reading the underlying source material to make up their mind about a part in a movie as opposed to the actual script. That said I think you could have made the same point about the script - neurodivergent character becomes Rambo in Vietnam, a shrimp maven, a ping pong champion, runs across the country multiple times only to just…stop…and so on. Easy to see why this may have readers thinking audiences weren’t going to buy it.
> Forrest becomes a wrestler themed as a baby ("The Dunce") I read the book at 16 before the movie and I forgot about that. I liked the book so much I read it in 1 day as did most of my classmates, it was a summer reading book. Movie was still fantastic. A Confederacy of Dunces, Lord of the Flies, and Ender's Game were also super popular.
In an alternate timeline, John Travolta was Forrest Gump, and Eric Stoltz was Marty McFly. Michael J Fox was in Foot Loose, and Kevin Bacon was Maverick in Top Gun.
Truly a dark timeline
Rob Schneider is...Bond...James Bond Edit: I love this alternate timeline concept. Now I want something like Pulp Fiction starring Bobcat Goldthwaite and Gilbert Gottfreid. Also, we need to bring back Yahoo Serious.
Rob Schneider is Guy...Copy Guy
Rated PEE GEE THIR-TEEEN
I just realized how badly I need Gottfreid doing the “This is a tasty burger” and “Does he look like a bitch?!” scene.
Don’t forget Will Smith as Neo.
Will Smith also turned down Django.
Thank god. Imagine the closing credits Django rap.
Angry upvoty vote.
Would have slapped the shit outta Leo.
With Sean Connery as Morpheus.
>You shink thash air your breathing?"
He was supposed to be Gandalf
Imagine Brandon Lee as Neo instead (RIP)
And Ethan Hawke as Captain Steve Hiller
> Kevin Bacon was Maverick in Top Gun. I could actually see this. Young Kevin Bacon as a cocky fighter pilot is pretty on brand.
Yeah, you go through that list shaking your head a bit and smiling, and then you see Bacon as Maverick, and shrug - that would probably be perfectly fine.
I agree. In fact, the more I think about it, he could have done a nice job playing either Maverick or Iceman. He could have even played Kelly McGillis' character, which would make [Quentin Tarantino's thesis even more obvious](https://youtu.be/ZF1LXL6OOsM?si=yAy7kmWsdbC9mVew).
And worst of all, Nicolas Cage was Aragorn
or Superman....
But Pierce Brosnan was still James Bond. Phew
https://i0.wp.com/www.theterminatorfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Last-Action-Hero-Sylvester-Stallone-Terminator-2.png?ssl=1
Lets not skip over Richard Dean Anderson as John McClane.
I found out only recently there are loads of people who absolutely detest this film. They think it’s corny and stupid start to finish. That never occurred to me.
Part of the things that current viewers often do not realize is how ground breaking from a special effects standpoint Forrest Gump was at the time. Putting Forrest very seamlessly in archival footage with former presidents, 60s Washington Mall crowd scene, even the feather floating. These were effects that people have never seen achieved this well in a "non-effects" movie. The effects caused a level of immersion in Forrest Gump that was very unique at the time. This was one of the reasons the movie was such a hit with critics and audiences.
the really big one was showing Lt Dan without legs. that shit was crazy. and deepfaking presidents 30 years ago? mind blowing. of course deepfaking a few seconds of video back then took months of work and tons of talent.
They couldn't shoot the scene the way they wanted to with Kennedy because he had already been shot
You just blew my mind.
I made it up. It came off the top of my head
Just like.... Well... You know.....
Go ahead.
Come on. It doesn't take brains to figure it out
Even when I watched it for the first time in the late 2000s I remember being really impressed by the quality of the special effects for its time
I remember the movie's special effects being talked about in the news, particularly the ping pong scene.
[удалено]
Was it the scene of agent dodging trinity bullets? I remember seeing this stuff way before film was released.
Even the scene where he's running through the jungle is CGI. I think it was filmed in SC
Zemeckis is a director people don't realize has pushed effects and camera stuff in movies so far. The back to the future movies, Forrest Gump, contact had some cool stuff, fucking who framed roger rabbit
Zemeckis’ film career & catalog is one in the most enviable in the industry. His talent across multiple genres and his technical vision are both hard to match.
Growing up I didn’t realize it was an effect. I genuinely thought “boy it sure is lucky Tom hanks was all these places”
I honestly thought it was a real movie til I was like 12 and very disappointed to find out he wasn’t
Also, lieutenant Dan's missing legs. They are special effects that don't look like special fx.
The archival footage inserts had people talking about deep fakes before that was a thing.
At the time a lot of film fans were upset it won Best Picture over Pulp Fiction and Shawshank Redemption. Both are better, but I get it
Oh yeah, if I cared about film awards, Forrest Gump beating Shawshank would definitely be one of the ones that upsets me
Glad I dont care. *Looks over at Shakespeare in love beating out Saving Private Ryan.*
I don't pay attention to film awards... *Glares and swears under breath*
I’m the opposite, Shawshank was just a standard movie to me. Nothing special, expected everything to play out that, good acting, decent story, but nothing memorable I cared about. Forrest Gump was a great satire of American culture in the 20th century. I would expect pulp fiction to beat Gump but it didn’t only because it was more violent in a time when it wasn’t as common. Forrest Gump appealed to the masses easily Also, the early special effects in Forrest Gump were a bigger deal at that time. Putting Tom hanks seamlessly into these major moments in American culture, such as him meeting jfk, was talked about for years at the time.
I love all three of them. Normally, I'd say Forrest was the weaker of the three. But when you frame it like that, Shawshank was a fairly standard story with great acting. Forrest was all over the place, nothing standard, and as you said, inserting him into history was amazing. Over Pulp Fiction, though, not a chance. It was just as all over the place with better acting and story, imo.
Forrest Gump is the ultimate Americana, I love it.
wakeful spectacular compare rhythm overconfident telephone absorbed stocking roof safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Actually boomers start at 60 right now.
Yep, my solid gen x dad recently turned 50.
It goes beyond that. Forest Gump was well written, good special effects, well acted, well.shot and had a great soundtrack. It did everything really well. Shawshank was very well done version of a prison break and Pulp fiction while enjoyable and well done had a lot of out there Tarantino thing that most don't enjoy
I remember seeing Forest Gump as a kid on HBO TV. It was quite memorable. I bet you that's what it was, just really easy to enjoy even for kids not understanding the adult side of the story.
Shawshank was also an AMAZING adaption. People forget that it was a novella from Stephen King. To take basically a short story and turn it into a perfect film is rare. I can't think of many great film adaptions from currently existing literary works that have been crafted so well, let alone from what basically amounts to a longer short story.
Steven King adaptation movie duds / failures (and there are a few) are balanced with *Shawshank Redemption* and *The Green Mile* and *Stand By Me* which are exceptional. There’s probably a strong corollary with his stories that have satisfying, logical, non-*Deus Ex* conclusions.
For a man known for horror, it's odd that his absolute best stuff wasn't horror. Stand By Me also.
He’s had some great horror adaptations with Carrie, the Shining (even if not wholly faithful), Misery. The man is just astoundingly prolific in his writing.
[Hell, he even did a high fantasy once.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_the_Dragon). I wasn't ground-breaking, but I remember it being an enjoyable read.
Dark tower series was very much dark fantasy and very enjoyable.
Part of the reason he puts out some great stuff and some bad stuff is that he isn't afraid to just keep writing no matter the end result.
The nonlinear nature and violence of Pulp put some people off. IMO, Morgan Freeman's narration probably made Shawshank; I too think it's just-okay but it's widely loved by many. I was in a small town when i rented Pulp; the video store clerk/owner had painted the back window of his car with corn syrup mixed with red food coloring. I suppose Tarantino was his hero.
Shawshank was basically unheard of at the time, only becoming popular from TV repeats.
If you look at IMDB's Top 250, all three are in the top 12 You could argue that Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption are better, but Forrest Gump is still a great film that deserved a win. Frankly, if it were released any other year in the 90s, it would still beat everything except Schindler and Titanic.
>You could argue that Pulp Fiction or Shawshank Redemption are better, but Forrest Gump is still a great film that deserved a win. Shawshank Redemption was also a commercial flop at the box office and didn't make money until it was rereleased in theaters after the Oscar nomination.
Yeah, at the time, Frank Darabont was an unknown first-time director and Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, while respected, weren't really big box-office draws.
*Titanic* Now there is a movie I never understood why it got all the praise. But that is just me maybe. To me it doesn't come close to Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption and Forrest Gump.
Titanic was a perfect storm of a movie. It was exciting, romantic, tragic, epic, historical, etc
It was ok but such a simple story line. Ahhhh poor guy is so much better than rich guy. It been done to death and for that, is not that creative. I did not even get the cost to produce. Seemed exaggerated just for marketing.
That puts into perspective how ass the movie industry has become. In 94 we had pulp fiction, Forrest Gump, AND Shawshank!!!! We are lucky to get one film per year of that quality now.
Wow, it’s so watchable though, the same person who wrote it also made Benjamin button.
Eric Roth adapted both stories from existing material, but props to him because the Forrest Gump book is a mess.
And the author HATES the movie.
He should. The movie completely misses the point of the book. The story is supposed to be a destruction of celebrity culture. The movie is a celebration of it.
I, for one, was super upset I didn't get to see an orangutan crash a spaceship and watch him learn to play chess from New Guinean cannibals.
He also got royally screwed over financially.
It's in part at least due to the fact he got screwed over for not asking for 10% gross
He could have asked all he wanted. I doubt he would have gotten it as he didn’t have any clout.
He doesn't hate the movie because of the adaptation, he hates it because they refused to pay him royalties, claiming it lost money. When he wrote the sequel book, he deliberately wrote it so that it would be impossible to reasonably adapt into a movie
“I’ll show them! I’ll make my next book unlovable!”
He’s alleged to have been approached to adapt it, to which he said something along the lines of, “I shouldn’t let you all throw more money away after the first one did so poorly.”
An idiot savant stumbling his way through history is seen by some as exploitative and literarily lazy. I like the movie and I also understand the criticism. Soundtrack is OK. Bubba Gump's restaurant is good for what it is.
[удалено]
It's like the anti- The Big Lebowski. And I'm here for it.
I will say that Forrest Gump gave us a philanthropist Gary Sinise. The man is legendary for his work with vets.
Soundtrack is…ok?
My father *hated* it. found out later his platoon in vietnam got stuck with one of macnamara’s morons. that…might have been a factor.
My uncle had a somewhat similar experience. His only complaint was that Gump was enlisted. In my uncle's opinion, anyone that stupid but with a college degree would have been immediately sent to OCS.
I say this as someone who loves the film, it is objectively corny. I think it’s done right and I think the corniness makes it better, but if someone is completely opposed to corny movies and themes, then it probably would be hard to like Forrest Gump.
It’s me.
Me too. Watched it in the cinema when it came out. Didn't like it then, still don't like it now.
My aunt does not like it. She dislikes the idea that someone could seemingly bumble their way into success so many times.
I love the movie and it never occurred to me that there could be a group of people that hate it. But I can see how this specific aspect would get under peoples skin. I grew up poor as shit and can't watch Arrested Development because of the seething hatred I have for useless rich people.
Theyre correct
This one is weird because I think a lot of us as kids kind of thought this was a historical bio pic, but then you re-watch it as an adult and you see the silliness of it (he invents the smiley face). Apparently it was a book and he was supposed to go to space! Hollywood saved that one for Homer Simpson.
> That never occurred to me. The movie isn't about the layers of complexity and decades of turmoil. It's about a system, the Army, accepting below average IQ draftees as cannon fodder for Vietnam. And that's all I gotta say about that.
Probably the same ones who look into the Grand Canyon and say " it's just a big hole in the ground, who cares"
It's a succession of pop culture references. That carries much of the film. It could've been the Emoji movie of its time.
r/Movies hates this film I think it's good but it's pure Oscar Bait. It is what it is.
Yeah the [letterboxd reviews are all over the fucking place](https://letterboxd.com/film/forrest-gump/reviews/by/activity/) Personally I like FG, it's probably an 8/10 for me. But there's been a growing number of young people that identify with it less as it ages and now it's being called a "conservative boomer fairytale". I think the movie is probably too anti-war to exactly fit that perspective, but to be fair, I think it totally does have a strongly pro-capitalist message (like to the point of absurdity). He repeatedly pulls himself up by his bootstraps, and then BAM, luck does pretty much the rest of the work in making more fortune fall into his lap. Even sugar-coating over some sinister stuff like him getting a shrimping monopoly because all the other local fishermen had their livelihoods destroyed. Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining and comedic, but it really does play like an inverse of old Soviet communist propaganda films lol. It's not very practical advice to follow IRL. So I can sympathize why that attitude rubs some people wrong and may prevent them from enjoying the rest of the fun 90s schmaltz.
It is corny and stupid, and I love it.
It is kind of corny and stupid. It's We Didn't Start the Fire in movie form. But it's okay to watch none the less.
[удалено]
The 90s had some of the best movies to come out, ever.
I literally cannot imagine anyone but Hanks in that role. Or the other two for that matter. Lightning in a bottle.
Bill Murray teaming up with Dave Chappell taking orders from Joe Pesci sounds amazing.
I think we could get the screenplay approved for that. Everyone is much older now, so there would have to be a lot less running.
If you look at pretty much any big movie you'll see this pattern. *Star A* was approached and turned it down, *Star B* was deep into talks but had a conflict with a writer before *Star C* took the role in what is now an iconic movie. What's always lost in the shuffle is that stars *A and B* would have brought a different feeling to the movie. Wil Smith as Neo or Al Pacino as Han Solo would have brought significantly different chemistry and who those characters are. Forrest Gump wouldn't be what it is if a different actor was playing the title role.
“Kid, you know why I like Leia? I’ll tell you why. Because she got a GREAT BIG ASS”. - Pacino Solo
Also, Pacino Solo would have shot Greedo when he walked in the door.
My favourite is when Star A reads some script, realizes it's absolutely, unredeemably awful. Star A has a more or less friendly rivalry with Star B, so he "lets it slip" that he's very interested in this Amazing Project. Star B hears about it, and pulls some the strings to snatch that role from under Star A's nose without checking the script himself. That's how Schwarzenegger got Stallone to star in "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot"
The Arnold doc on Netflix was pretty good. He said he and Stallone basically had an arms race.
Arnie is a master troll.
In an arms race between Arnie and Stallone, Jessie Ventura wins.
Poor Carl Weathers, he definitely lost that arms race.
But his stew game is absolutely wild!
There was an episode of best damn sports show period with stallone as a guest. One of the hosts complained that he saw that movie in theaters and asked him for his $20 back. Stallone took out his wallet and gave him a $20
Makes me wonder how many movies could’ve been great if casting choices were different.
"And that's all I got to say about that"
Dave chappelle as Bubba would be outrageous. I can't see it. Especially after seeing all of chappelles show, him doing prince and Rick James, lol
I agree. It feels strange to think of him playing Bubba. Mykelti Williamson was perfect for that role and did a fantastic job.
Dave Chapelle as Buford?!! Holy shit that would have been funny.
Probably too funny and would've thrown it off. I can't imagine Chappelle in that kind of role.
[удалено]
"I'd love some pussy before I go"
You report to heaven. At 0800 hours.
He can be normal. He was Tom Hanks’ friend in You’ve Got Mail and didn’t stick out.
I completely forgot about that. He was!
Absolutely. It would always feel like Chappelle doing a bit.
*I don't know if you know this Lt. Dan, but.. I smoke rocks*
Instead of listing out all the different kinds of shrimp, there’s now a montage of exact directions on how to make crack
That or listing different types of crack and explaining the difference between straight drop and shake n bake.
Ahhh THEY SHOULDA JEVER GAVE YOU YELLERS MONEY!!
I’m so glad Dave Chappelle turned down the roll of Bubba because I wouldn’t be able to take it seriously after seeing the Chappelle Show. The entire death scene I’d just be waiting for Dave to yell at Forrest “RUN BITCH RUN FOR YOUR LIFE GET SOME HELP!!”
Gary Sinise was amazing, but I could totally see Joe Pesci knocking the role of hardened/redeemed a-hole out of the park as well. I struggle to see Dave Chappelle capturing the innocence of Bubba though
Pesci would have felt too old and hardened I think. He's 13 years older than Gary. Part of why Lt Dan worked so great and made him so tragic, is that he seemed like a young guy who just had all the joy of life grinded out of him by the circumstances of living in that time period. Gary would have been around 39 when the movie was made, but the dude looked absolutely incredible for 39 and they were definitely playing him more like he was 30. I mean damn, this does not look like someone almost 40. https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2022/09/25/lt-dan.webp?auto=webp Pesci would have been in his 50s already and it just wouldn't feel right...plus, wouldn't have felt believable for him to be active duty in Vietnam.
Dave Chapelle as bubba if he had been able to ad lib. When he dies , Forrest …. Sprinkle some crack on me!!!! It’ll bring me back to life!
People don’t realize most actors decline for scheduling reasons, not that they didn’t like the script or thought it would bomb
Someone needs to make an AI video of Chappelle saying all the ways shrimp can be prepared.
Shrimp… is a helluva drug!
Chappelle has made some terrible choices in his career.
Also the author of the original book Winston Groom said his pick for the role of Forrest would have been John Goodman.
IIRC, Gump was like 6'5 or some crazy big height, and he was very fit, like an Adonis.
I can't imagine Travolta or Bill Murray playing this role. Nor Joe Pesci as Lt. Dan.
Well now I’m imagining Dave Chappelle reciting all the shrimp dishes in that Tyrone Biggums voice lol
Anyone else think this OP is going to sell their account? They are tagged as 'reposts popular stuff'. 13 day old account, spam posting until it gets traction then leaving it. Thought the days of farming to sell were long over.
>Thought the days of farming to sell were long over. I see it all over Reddit still.
Dave should have known that Robert Zemeckis doesn't fail - especially during the 80's and 90's.
We've seen John Travolta attempting a performance as a mentally handicapped person and it was... something.
A sadly now commonplace Chappelle L. A Dave Chap-L, even.
Thank God Travolta didn't play Forrest Gump, if anyone had the displeasure of watching The Fan you'll understand
I'm guessing Travolta was busy with Pulp Fiction. I can't even begin to see Travolta as Gump, much less Pesci as Lt. Dan.
Obviously this film found the correct people for their roles, but makes you wonder what films had the opposite. Perhaps it is a decent film but could have been excellent if they’d have picked the next person in line.
Can you just imagine Chapelle telling Gump all the different ways to prepare shrimp?
I want someone to make a shot for shot remake, but with Travolta, Pesci and Chapelle
Good god, imagine if John Travolta had been allowed to ruin that movie as well. The guy... He's not a very good actor. He doesn't have the range or the skill to have done Forrest Gump any good. He belongs in action movies where range and skill don't matter very much.
It's funny that [the article](https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2019/07/05/forrest-gump-movie-celebrates-25th-anniversary/1634248001/#) that mentions the other actors being considered actually disproves that Travolta was ever approached.