Hangover - script vs film

[Wordsmithteer]

I saw the movie the Hangover this weekend and then I read the script. What did you prefer, the movie or the script? Generally when I see a movie and read the script, I prefer the script, here I'm torn.

I thought the character development and the villain was better in the script. I think the script was good and the elements were there in the script and they may have been rearranged but they were still in the film.

The script had a great hook and at the end of the day that is what sold the script and the film. Was the film version an improved version of the script?

SPOILERS

I liked the cop car addition and thought this element was already in the script with the visit to the police station.

I was meh with the baby and this element was in the script, simply changed (the stripper bride has a kid in the script).

The tiger in the bathroom said a lot about the type of night they had, but I can't say that Mike Tyson did anything for me.

The film for the most part skipped the overdone visits to the stripper club and gay club. I also like in the film how we are introduced to each character in the film before they hit Vegas.

Both the film and script could have finished sooner. Once they find the groom the mystery is solved and for me the film should have ended there. We really didn't need to see the wedding.

I think it was better for the car to belong to Phil (Vic in the script) it has him more invested in the story and what happened that night.

If I remember correctly there was WGA arbitration over the script credits. Did the director deserve some recognition for what he added to the script? Or did he simply rearrange elements that were already in the script?

[Banjaxed]

Both the film and script could have finished sooner. Once they find the groom the mystery is solved and for me the film should have ended there. We really didn't need to see the wedding.


I think the whole point of the wedding was to show the complete arc of the guy missing his tooth (can't remember his name). Doesn't he tell his missus to go fcuk herself or something like that? I think he's the only character who actually changes in the film. Where's a better place to dump your cheating, bit*h missus than at a wedding, in public, surrounding by your friends? At home in the bathroom, after a few gin and tonics, would have been a bit of a downer, considering the antics we've just watched in the proceeding 90 minutes.

[winter dreams]

I also liked both. This is purely conjecture, but here's what I think happened when Todd Phillips got attached -- he decided that the key scene was the one where they wake-up hungover in the hotel room, and he wanted to punch that up as much as possible, make it the most outrageous hungover scene in movie history. So he (and his writer, Jeremy Garelick) must have sat around and said, okay, so he wakes up with a chicken ... and a fricken tiger! Yeah! And then there's a fricken baby in the closet! And so on. And then they tried to write it so that all of these outrageous trailer moments made sense. They also punched up a few other moments (cop car, naked guy in trunk), and then did the same -- tried to make story sense. Sort of the way Hitchcock used to work (from what I've read), coming up with all the big scenes first then letting the screenwriter figure out how to actually make the story work.

The cop car was a good addition, I agree, until the taser scene, which was way over the top for me. And the Asian bad guy didn't work for me, though it was funny when he popped out of the trunk.

[Biohazard]

The tiger in the bathroom said a lot about the type of night they had, but I can't say that Mike Tyson did anything for me.

Both the film and script could have finished sooner. Once they find the groom the mystery is solved and for me the film should have ended there. We really didn't need to see the wedding.

1 - You can tell the whole tiger subplot was pasted into the film because it simply has nothing to do with anything else. They still find Doug even if you remove that scene, and stuff like that annoys the piss out of me.

If a scene is not essential to the plot and can literally be removed without disrupting the story or causing holes, then f***ing take it out!

2 - The goal for the heroes was to get Doug to the wedding on time, not to simply find him. This is evidenced by the escalating threat of not getting him there in time for the wedding - Doug going missing, heroes spending an extra night in Vegas, even the intro scene which I despise with every fiber of my being reinforces this point by clearly stating "That's not gonna happen", meaning Doug appearing at his wedding on time.

[chuco]

Biohazard,

I know the tiger part was not a key part of the plot or subplot, but you have to admit it was funny.

I have a totally different feeling on the tiger, because I was stoned off my ass when I saw it and the tiger was so over the top that regardless of the plot it had to stay.....

I guess in comedy sometimes you have to screw the plot and pass the pot as long as it's funny.

[Biohazard]

I know the tiger part was not a key part of the plot or subplot, but you have to admit it was funny.

I have a totally different feeling on the tiger, because I was stoned off my ass when I saw it and the tiger was so over the top that regardless of the plot it had to stay.....

I guess in comedy sometimes you have to screw the plot and pass the pot as long as it's funny.

Writing in a particular genre does not excuse anyone from lazy writing.

There was some funny byproduct from the tiger's inclusion, but I spent more time thinking about why it was just haphazardly thrown in with utter disregard for relevance and plot cohesion than I spent laughing.

EVERY scene should matter. EVERY scene should be important.

I don't care if you're writing awards bait, summer blockbusters or DTV fodder...there is absolutely no reason why EVERY scene can't matter.

[Recreant]

Maybe I missed something while watching but I didn't understand the police car thing. For some reason they're mistaken for police officers and then on top of they decide to steal the cop car instead of just renting a car or something.

[winter dreams]

Maybe I missed something while watching but I didn't understand the police car thing. For some reason they're mistaken for police officers and then on top of they decide to steal the cop car instead of just renting a car or something.

Was it while watching the video at tysons that they see their drunk selves getting into the cop car? I can't recall. Anyway they are so drunk they take the cop car at some point. Then they are mistaken for cops because they are driving a cop car.

[Biohazard]

Was it while watching the video at tysons that they see their drunk selves getting into the cop car? I can't recall. Anyway they are so drunk they take the cop car at some point. Then they are mistaken for cops because they are driving a cop car.

I think he means when they are leaving the hotel in the morning and the valet brings the cruiser around.

I assume they accepted the car instead of saying that it wasn't theirs so they don't get in trouble for swiping it the night before. They could just drop it off on the side of the road later and pretend they never took it. Plus, they needed to get around quickly and had no vehicle at the moment.

[Canadianbear]

Writing in a particular genre does not excuse anyone from lazy writing.

There was some funny byproduct from the tiger's inclusion, but I spent more time thinking about why it was just haphazardly thrown in with utter disregard for relevance and plot cohesion than I spent laughing.

EVERY scene should matter. EVERY scene should be important.

I don't care if you're writing awards bait, summer blockbusters or DTV fodder...there is absolutely no reason why EVERY scene can't matter.

Whats wrong with the scene existing for the comedic factor alone?

I's a Comedy and the scene was hilarious. Doesn't the scene matter then? Doesn't the comedic factor make it important? It's one of the most memorable scenes of the movie.

[Recreant]

Was it while watching the video at tysons that they see their drunk selves getting into the cop car? I can't recall. Anyway they are so drunk they take the cop car at some point. Then they are mistaken for cops because they are driving a cop car.

Ah, for some reason I didn't even think of that.

[nou]

Writing in a particular genre does not excuse anyone from lazy writing.

There was some funny byproduct from the tiger's inclusion, but I spent more time thinking about why it was just haphazardly thrown in with utter disregard for relevance and plot cohesion than I spent laughing.

EVERY scene should matter. EVERY scene should be important.

I don't care if you're writing awards bait, summer blockbusters or DTV fodder...there is absolutely no reason why EVERY scene can't matter.

youre the man

[Wordsmithteer]

I think the whole point of the wedding was to show the complete arc of the guy missing his tooth .

Stu's arc is completed at the hotel when he speaks with Heather Graham and asks her out to dinner next week. Showing the break up with the girlfriend is unnecessary after than scene and honestly, I didn't think it was very funny.

If you want to show the wedding make it fast - Doug and his best men standing in front of the priest. Because once Doug is found the mystery is solved and you need to get out of the story quick, quick.

Is was the unraveling the crazy night in Vegas that was the fun part of the story. The wedding part was sloooooow for me.

[Moviequill]

EVERY scene should matter. EVERY scene should be important.

not in today's comedies that seem to be making the big bucks. stupid is is stupid does. the more outrageous and mindless over the top, the more they want it

[winter dreams]

1 - You can tell the whole tiger subplot was pasted into the film because it simply has nothing to do with anything else. They still find Doug even if you remove that scene, and stuff like that annoys the piss out of me.

If a scene is not essential to the plot and can literally be removed without disrupting the story or causing holes, then f***ing take it out!



Keep in mind, though, that although this was a comedy, it was structured like a mystery. I don't recall every detail of the movie but the Tyson bit enabled the three guys to determine that Doug was indeed with them at that time, which was important to them (exactly why I can't remember). I think the writers thought it out and made it relevant, if not absolutely key to the ultimate discovery of Doug.

And even if the whole Tyson thing was a red herring -- mysteries have those. It would have been less appealing as a mystery if every single scene resulted in a piece of the puzzle -- it would have been too easy.

[Biohazard]

Whats wrong with the scene existing for the comedic factor alone?

You can get away with it in a comedy - if the scene is short enough. Tyson took up a good 20 minutes and left me scratching my head. Yeah, it was amusing, but had no importance.

It felt out of place, which in turn took me out of the experience of the film, and that is never a good thing.

...the Tyson bit enabled the three guys to determine that Doug was indeed with them at that time, which was important to them (exactly why I can't remember).

You don't remember because there was no reason. All it did was enable them to know Doug was with them the previous night, which they already knew anyway. After that scene, they were no closer to finding Doug than they were before it.

[nou]

i'd like to add that the story's problem could've been solved at any minute. the one guy just remembers the mattress after someone said bed (or something stupid like that)? this could've happened at any point throughout the movie. so i guess the entire film was a bunch of useless scenes.

[Wordsmithteer]

SPOILERS

The big mystery, and one of the weaknesses of the script and the story, is finding Doug. They spend the day looking for him all over Vegas only to realize in what was for me a blinding stroke of luck that he's on the roof.

The only reason for the whole roofie thing is so they can have that dialogue line at the end about it being funny you are more likely to end up on the floor than a roof with a roofie. And tadah they know where Doug is.

The prank aspect of the moment works because of the night they had, and yet the answer to the big mystery is he's on the roof - a not very exciting answer. In a lot of ways the whole day of unravelling what happened was pointless because Doug was at the hotel the whole time.

It would have been better for groom Doug to have been the guy in the car. The guy in the car turning out to be another guy named Doug is kind of lame. And that plot point felt like it was there so they could have this twist moment at the end of the story.

I liked the film, it was fun to watch, but I don't see it as something I'll be watching in 10 years.

[Biohazard]

That's what you get when you thrown in a patchwork of scenes unrelated to each other. The only way it can end would be through an epiphany.

[Gwai Lo]

i'd like to add that the story's problem could've been solved at any minute. the one guy just remembers the mattress after someone said bed (or something stupid like that)? this could've happened at any point throughout the movie. so i guess the entire film was a bunch of useless scenes.

Ah, but isn't it always in the last place you look?

I thought The Hangover was vastly overrated, but in its defense it's kind of part and parcel of the mystery genre to commit the narrative crimes it's being accused of in this thread. In most mysteries the hero(s) have to sort through a bunch of red herrings and false leads before they solve the case. I'm not saying The Hangover did this all that gracefully, and a good mystery would leave relevant clues even in the scenes that seem like dead ends. But add to the fact that it's a comedy, a genre that's almost as lenient as the musical in allowing the narrative to be set aside for a dose of entertainment, and I don't think it matters all that much that the Mike Tyson/tiger thing did little to help the Hungovers crack the mystery. Clearly it didn't matter to audiences, who for the most part found the movie to be more hilarious than us Acolyte screenwriters on the internet did.

[Johnny]

wait what? I'm a screenwriter on the interwebs an I completely enjoyed this movie and just Netflixed it to watch it again this past week. I had a good time for 95 mins... What more can you ask for?

[kintnerboy]

Great script, great movie, although two totally different entities. Really good example of how a work can evolve through development and re-writing certain characters to suit casting.

I could have done without the gay asian gangster, but I'm sure this was a callback to the gay asian king in Role Models, which was funny enough, so I get why they did it.

Zach Galifinakis is to The Hangover what Heath Ledger was to The Dark Knight, which is to say it wouldn't have been half as good without him.

[Biohazard]

wait what? I'm a screenwriter on the interwebs an I completely enjoyed this movie and just Netflixed it to watch it again this past week. I had a good time for 95 mins... What more can you ask for?


I enjoy Commando, but there's a lot more I would ask for when searching for quality films. One of which is a congruent plot where all the pieces fit.

[Tom72]

Zach Galifinakis is to The Hangover what Heath Ledger was to The Dark Knight, which is to say it wouldn't have been half as good without him.

I agree; and I admit, although having Tyson was not needed, when he punched out Zach, it was freaking hilarious.

Overall, the movie, however contrived, was entertaining.

[Geoff Alexander]

Writing in a particular genre does not excuse anyone from lazy writing.

There was some funny byproduct from the tiger's inclusion, but I spent more time thinking about why it was just haphazardly thrown in with utter disregard for relevance and plot cohesion than I spent laughing.

EVERY scene should matter. EVERY scene should be important.

I don't care if you're writing awards bait, summer blockbusters or DTV fodder...there is absolutely no reason why EVERY scene can't matter.

The tiger scene mattered to me because I was literally crying with laughter during the bit with the security camera footage when they are shoving the tiger in the police car and one of the guy starts dry humping it from behind.

In fact, that scene mattered more to me than anything else in the movie, because it was, for me the funniest fu!king thing in there and I really didn't give a crap about some lame ticking clock having to do with getting the guy to a wedding. Now, could they have figured out a way to make the tiger an integral and organic element in the story which leads unwaveringly to the outcome? Sure. Would the movie have been better or funnier, or more enjoyable if they did that? Maybe. Maybe not. I am generally a proponent of making every scene count, but as far as I'm concerned, if you have comedic gold, then you get to take the mulligan once in any script.

[Biohazard]

I am generally a proponent of making every scene count, but as far as I'm concerned, if you have comedic gold, then you get to take the mulligan once in any script.

You can get away with it easier in comedy than any other genre, by far...but when a scene that takes up more than half the second act means nothing in relation to everything else going on, something is wrong.

That's great if you can excuse that, but I refuse to lower my standards because the filmmakers didn't give a s***.

[Geoff Alexander]

You can get away with it easier in comedy than any other genre, by far...but when a scene that takes up more than half the second act means nothing in relation to everything else going on, something is wrong.

That's great if you can excuse that, but I refuse to lower my standards because the filmmakers didn't give a s***.

Do you write comedy?

[thatcomedian]

Do you write comedy?
Didn't you read his post?;)

[THEUGLYDUCKLING]

Here we go...

[Johnny]

I enjoy Commando, but there's a lot more I would ask for when searching for quality films. One of which is a congruent plot where all the pieces fit.

Just not going to fly. How is it not congruent? They had a wild ass bacholar party were they were drunk and drugged out of their mind and did some wild shiznit which included stealing a cop car and Tyson's Tiger.

[nou]

Just not going to fly. How is it not congruent? They had a wild ass bacholar party were they were drunk and drugged out of their mind and did some wild shiznit which included stealing a cop car and Tyson's Tiger.

i think the point hes trying to make is that it wouldnt have mattered what they did and the ending could have stayed the same.