The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
Mickey 7
Mickey 7
>
M7: The line between adaptation and "in name only" (spoilers abound)
date
newest »
newest »
https://screenrealm.com/mickey-17-mov...I did not see it in the theater which now I am kicking myself. Bong Joon Ho directed 2 great films Parasite and Okja, had I realize that I would have made more of an effort. Hope you read the second book in the series Antimatter Blues, It is also a great read.
Stephen wrote: "https://screenrealm.com/mickey-17-mov...I did not see it in the theater which now I am kicking myself. Bong Joon Ho directed 2 great films Parasite and Okja, had I rea..."
Yeah, that link more or less captures what I said. I loved Parasite, but I just hated how the movie subverts the book. (Vs just differences needed for adaptation)
Book adaptations exist on a spectrum. On the most faithful end, the canonical example is the comic to movie adaptation of Watchmen. Closer to the “in name only” end - many Philip K Dick short stories that get turned into movies. I mentioned in my review that I knew that there would be challenges in this adaptation. I also am more chill about changes that come with adaptations than I once was. But I have to say that Mickey17 definitely is a lot further from the point of the book than I thought it would be. (Reminded me of the 1990s (or early 2000s?) adaptation of Starship Troopers) It also seemed to take the plot from dark humor to absurdist. (Reminded me of a Terry Gilliam film)
I’m going to start with what I believe is both the biggest difference and biggest subversion of what the author is getting across with the book. The running theme throughout the book, both in Mickey’s mind and in conversation with others is whether Mickey is immortal. If his consciousness is written into each new iteration and really only has potential discontinuities when he couldn’t upload before death, what’s the difference between being unkillable and being reprinted with his memories? In fact, Mickey’s key realization near the end (view spoiler)[is that the six weeks since his last backup is both the reason that Mickey8 isn’t the same person as him and the reason that Mickey9 would not be a continuation of his life. (hide spoiler)] The movie subverts this message in 2 ways. First of all,(view spoiler)[ Mickey18 is much more violent, assertive, and sexually aggresive than Mickey17. Second, in a bit of narration, Mickey17 tells us that Nasha noticed differences in each of his prior iterations. As I said, this was a KEY point of the book - are you immortal if your memories persist? And how much memory is needed to make a new person? If each version can be different, then the answer is a clear "no" rather than a fuzzy one. (hide spoiler)]
Continuing with Mickey differences in the movie, book Mickey is a (view spoiler)[dilettante. He’s a useless member of Midgard (more on that later) because he’s a historian instead of having a real job. He just lives on the universal basic income. Movie Mickey is kind of more of a dumbass. He doesn’t really seem to have much to offer anyone, including Nasha. (hide spoiler)] This change is more understandable because movies don’t have as much space for nuance and backstory as books. (view spoiler)[I do wish they had made him less of a loser, though. (hide spoiler)] The movie also robs Mickey of an important milestone. In the book Mickey has to (view spoiler)[pull the trigger to prove he’s ready to be an Expendable. The movie having the person just pull the trigger on him subverts that whole idea that Mickey THINKS he has come to terms with his fate. (hide spoiler)]
I think this is a great spot to quickly mention that the ships for the different colonies leave from (view spoiler)[Earth, not Midgard. (hide spoiler)] The movie lacks all of the history (and the messages about war, division, etc) of the book related to why humans left Earth. I don’t mind this change. Again, it is semi-necessary for the adaptation without throwing us into an info-dump.
Getting back to changes that seem to change the meaning of the book: Mickey’s relationship to Bertos (Timo in the movie). It once again changes Mickey’s agency in becoming an Expendable in a way that mucks with what the author was going for. In the book Mickey has been friends with Bertos since elementary or middle school and has a semi-jealous relationship with his ability to excel at everything he does. (view spoiler)[Mickey, ON HIS OWN, makes the bad choice to bet on Bertos in some fake science fiction sport. This leads to his problem with the loan shark and the need to get on the colony ship. Contrast this with the movie where Timo convinces Mickey to invest in a restaurant and tricks him into putting most of the loans in his name. (Also, they were orphans together?) This completely changes the relationship. Instead of one where Mickey semi-resents him (while Bertos is clueless about that) for something that Mickey himself did, he has a legit reason to be upset with him. Also, I don’t get the reason to make Timo a drug dealer in the movie. (hide spoiler)]
The final huge difference that truly changes the tone of the story being told is the change made to Marshall. In the book Marshall is a competent leader with some hard ass tendencies that most people find kind of annoying. He has a religious component to his character, but only (view spoiler)[to make him a natalist so that he hates Mickey. (hide spoiler)] In the movie he seems to be (view spoiler)[a parody of televangelists and politicians. Also, a good chunk of the ship seems to treat him as a celebrity and seem to be part of the same religion. He’s also surrounded himself with sycophants. Not only does this undermine most of his opinions (he seems like a real idiot in the movie), but he is framed as a villain. (hide spoiler)] In the book, it is easier to see things from Marshall’s point of view.
A smaller difference, but still grating is the fact that the book is dark humor while the movie seems to be more absurdist. The science team seems to be sadistic or negligent. In the book they dismiss his concerns since he’ll be rebooted, but they don’t seem to be criminally negligent.
All these changes that seem to undermine a lot of what the author is trying to say make it all the more strange to me that the movie hits a lot of the same beats like the (view spoiler)[three-some and the thing with Kai. (hide spoiler)] However, on the compressed timeline of the movie, a lot of the impact is blunted. The book has (view spoiler)[Mickeys 7 and 8 trying hard not to get caught and having to go through 48+ hours of bumping into random people who know them. (hide spoiler)]
Overall, it seems as though the book is trying to have a philosophical discussion with the reader while the movie reads as political. (view spoiler)[We have a dumbass politician in a position of power with a bunch of idiot sycophants around him. The stuff he says about what he wants for the colony (at the dinner, with the rock, etc) seems to be Hitler-esque and focused on eugenics. None of that was in the book and I think the book was better for it. (hide spoiler)]
PS - I was surprised the movie had narration. Usually the biggest reason for changes in adaptation come from that fact that barely any movies or TV shows have narration.