The movie's message is about egotism triumphing against adversity, while the message of the book is about the vulnerability of friendship and the dangers of getting lost in your ambitions. I really don't want to be such a stick in the mud, but the movie just feels like a glossy love letter about Hollywood, made by Hollywood, for Hollywood to pretend they where a part of the cult following since the beginning.
I watched the film and really enjoyed it but then I listened to the audio book and was blown away. Sestero's version of the story (arguably the more "true" story) was so much darker and stranger than I could have imagined. Even Sestero's Tommy voice, while it doesn't tonally sound like Wiseau, portrays a depth of pathos and oddness that goes beyond Franco's impression.The film portrays Tommy as just an eccentric fellow, but once I finished the audiobook I realized that he likely has borderline personality disorder.
Jonathan Williams My friends and I enjoy "the room" I read the book when it came out and agree with everything you said. When the "Disaster artist" came out my friends liked it because they saw it as a fun reenactment of "the room". I felt disappointed that it took very little from the book. My friends think a film really can't capture those kind of emotions from the book on screen. I believe it can be done.
Not an expert, this is just the conclusion the book led me to based his behavior. Needy and unstable relationships, distorted self-image, impulsive behavior, extreme emotional swings, fear of abandonment. Basically, he's on his own "Tommy" planet, divorced from reality, and uses emotional manipulation to get others onto his side.
My disappointment with the movie, having read the book first, was how disconnected the film's depiction of Greg as a person is from the person who comes across in the book, and how inaccurately it depicted Greg and Tommy's friendship. The Greg of the film is a naïve, credulous person who's not that smart, easily led, and full of eager, puppyish enthusiasm, whose loyalty and affection for Tommy only ever temporarily wavers before coming back stronger than ever, and plays the platonic, same-gender version of the "woman behind the man" catalyst for Tommy. The Greg of the book is a young person who is naïve only because of his youth, but not necessarily gullible and not stupid either. He's far more self-conscious and introverted and ultimately drawn to Tommy because of his need to get himself out of himself and let his freak flag fly. But he's also FREQUENTLY embarrassed by Tommy and questions their relationship and to some extent only stays in the friendship because of the financial benefits it afforded him (use of Tommy's LA apartment for a mere $200 a month). He defends Tommy to other people whilst also feeling exploited by the relationship and viewing it as manipulative and toxic. He knew right away that The Room was crap and didn't want to be involved, but ultimately did it because Tommy offered him a lot of money and he needed it badly, but was also ashamed of himself for his lack of integrity in doing so. Greg in the movie believes in the film and believes in Tommy uncritically. The truth of Greg and Tommy's relationship is complicated and ambivalent, and Greg is much more layered and far more aware person that Dave Franco's portrayal of him. While James captured Tommy to the letter, if a little more positively than deserved, Dave has nothing at all of Sestero's personality, appearance, or general affect. He's almost a completely different character than the actual Greg.
You know... I feel like that kind of portrayal, the one in the book, is important. Because watching something like the movie version of The Disaster Artist can make you feel like, wow, I wish I were that good of a friend; what's wrong with me? Not that I've ever been in that kind of situation, but... If I'm being honest, I couldn't imagine myself being just so accepting of someone like Tommy. He's so childish in the movie that... I don't think I could take him seriously. But the truth is that, neither could Greg, really. Real people are complicated.
Hakajin, Greg never really did take Tommy seriously even from the beginning, but enjoyed the relationship despite himself...but less so over time. In the book, he never made it clear why didn't end the relationship, particularly after moving out of his apartment. I definitely would have. As childish as he was in the movie, in the book he was WORSE . But yet, in a weird way, their inexplicable and somewhat unhealthy connection ultimately paid off in ways no one could have ever foreseen. To me, that's the heart of the book and what gets lost in the movie in favor of the Tommy-as-antihero narrative.
I mean, I imagine there was some sense of responsibility there, at least... I haven't read the book, so I can't really say, but I've definitely been in positions where I just didn't want to hurt someone.
Having read it, I felt it came off as passivity and fear of confrontation, but maybe they mutually used each other too. I felt that Tommy might have actually had some repressed sexual attraction to Greg, if Greg's narration is trusted to be reliable (at least more so than Tommy's would be). But when Tommy asked for Greg's opinion, Greg didn't tell the truth, he'd just tell him what he wanted to hear, and criticism was only ever given indirectly in a sugar coated fashion, so in that sense, Greg actually wasn't a good friend, though it doesn't seem that Tommy could have handled anyone being honest with him either. From that perspective, the Tommy-Greg bromance is actually FAR from what should be anyone's friendship goals.
Because I don't really make this clear in the video: I did enjoy Franco's movie, I just felt like it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been (for the reasons I talk about in the video).
Thomas Flight Hello Thomas, I am huge fan of The Room, and The Disaster Artist (film and book) and I have met both Tommy and Greg at a screening and chatted with them for about 10 minutes last February. They’re incredibly down-to-earth guys and they tell the most relatable stories to struggling artists, and I think they’re amazing at what they do. I read the book before I went to see the movie, and I agree with you to a certain extent. It is true that Franco and Rogen wanted to make a movie that was loyal to the original source, but on the same token, they wanted to make a commercial movie that tells a fascinating story about something that most people wouldn’t believe if they hadn’t heard of The Room/Tommy Wiseau before. The story is not really a tragedy to me, it’s just dark comedy. As far as I know, there were contractual reasons for the movie being turned into this “dark comedy”, which is respectful to Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero’s story. Greg’s idea was to write a book hoping that it was later picked up and turned into a movie. He envisioned Javier Bardem as Tommy, and Ryan Gosling as himself. While negotiating with Tommy Wiseau to get his life rights, Franco, and especially Sestero, wanted to make sure that the movie gave Tommy enough credit for what he had accomplished, and for that, some of the darker chapters of the book had to be taken out of the screenplay, as Tommy was hurt after reading the book, and I believe that Greg didn’t want the film to explore Tommy’s three mysteries (where is he from, how old is he, and how did he get all his money), nor his suicide attempt. The movie could have been so much better, and Franco has admitted in many interviews that a lot of footage was left out of the movie at Greg’s request, as he wanted the movie to end on a positive note. Furthermore, since Wiseau is known for his many legal issues with some of the actors who were in The Room, and was the one granting his life rights and the rights to use some of The Room’s scenes, I’m sure Franco decided not to expand the story and make a more Oscar-worthy movie, using some of the darker stuff of the book. All in all Franco - the producer, director, and main actor of the movie - had to be extra careful with that as he NEEDED to make sure Tommy liked the movie. Tommy not liking the movie would have meant that the movie, instead of making 30 million dollars at the box office, would have made less than half that amount. In fact, after the Franco sexual assault scandals, TOMMY was the one who stood up and travelled everywhere to sell the blu-rays. Like Walter White, Tommy is the one who knocks.
Thank you for this fantastic response. While I think my video lays out HOW the movie would have been better had it explored some of the darker themes, your comment does an excellent job of explaining all the reason WHY the movie didn't utilize those elements. That's another layer of the difficulty of creating an adaptation. I tried to allude to some of that in my video when I talk about the fact that the movie is an adaptation of not just the book but also real life. This might be one of those cases where it wasn't possible to make the "best" version of the movie for a variety of reasons. And at the end of the day, I think it's kinda nice that Tommy get's to have a movie about him that he likes. But the net result is that the book will remain one of my favorite books, and the movie will simply be a fun movie I saw a few times.
From the book it's clear, that Tommy is afraid looking bad in eyes of public. Pretty sure, he was the one who insisted on changing his persona for the movie, before signing contract for his "life right".
yea it would be up to him how it's presented you're right actually, I guess the movie couldn't be made any other way, still glad it was though. even if the movie was god awful it would at least bring attention to the book.
In interviews, the Franco brothers seemed confused by Greg’s motivation to perform in the Room. In the book, his motivation was simple: Tommy finally made Greg a financial offer he couldn’t refuse. Up until that point Greg’s loyalty ended with helping Tommy out behind the scenes.
Sestero only accepted to be in the movie after Tommy offered a shit ton of money, not because he "loved" his friend so much. They were actually 2 parasites feeding on each other. The book does a great job showing how weird and unhealthy their relationship was. The movie would have been more interesting if it portrayed their relationship like that.
Also, Franco boiled down Tommy as being a mean, selfish, oblivious, and controlling person (one dimensional). Greg's description of Tommy is a weird person who seems selfless, at first. Then he becomes mean and monstrous... then by the end he is a man who has bad aspects but at the end if just a man in pain. They also specifically added things to the movie that was specifically said didn't happen in real life. Tommy didn't point out Juliet's acne when she was naked during the sex scene, she was wearing a "hideous" shirt. During the sex scene everyone who wanted to be chivalrous and get Tommy off of Juliet held back those urges... "but what if we mix the incidences, and add that they DID pull him off?!" Tommy never fired anyone, people constantly quit. In the movie, he fired the guy for pulling him off Juliet. And if he did fire people, the crew saw it as a blessing, no one begged for their jobs back.
What bothers me most about the movie is that dave franco doesnt even try to sound like greg sestero which becomes only more apparent next to james francos great impression
So clear franko didn't want to bother looking for a real look alike for him. Which is a shame because the rest of the cast was so spot on in looks or nature. Dave was so wrong for the part.
Yeah, Dave Franco's Greg is excitable, enthusiastic, eager, and boyish like a friendly puppy. When you watch Greg Sestero in an interview though, his body language is a tad stiff and his vocal mannerisms are extremely laid back, his general demeanor calm and even a tad aloof. I can't really picture him screaming "YEAH LETS DO IT!"- he's more like, "Um, yeah...sure, let's do it. Why not?" Nothing about Dave Franco was like Greg, not his body language and posture, not his speech, not his appearance, nothing. Not even the blond hair and ridiculous fake beard, which made him look kind of ugly. (Which I found rather ironic, that in real life Tommy is freaky looking and Greg is a model, in the film James as Tommy is actually hot and Dave as Greg is the goofy looking one.)
moonlily1 you do have to give Dave Franco Credit for his performance though. In my opinion it’s great that they got the Franco brothers to play the protagonists because if you are friends with someone for a really long time, you are like brothers in a way. It also adds to the depth of their respective characters, they basically argue and say things to each other the same way brothers do.
The ending was a betrayal, the movie did not became an instant cult classic hit, it took a few years with early pre social media internet to be well known
The Disaster Artist is a fun underdog comedy/drama. They had to condense a five year epic into two hours and they did fine. I loved it but I’m biased to the cast and story itself. Had it been a mini series that was able to lay out everything from book-showing us all of Greg’s past, keep the over lapping timelines, etc-it could have been a near masterpiece.
I'm so glad this video got made. The disaster artist book absolutely blew me away. I was shocked by how dramatic and compelling it ended up being. I bought it for the wacky anecdotes from the filming, but I ended up getting one of the best stories I've ever read. To do this story and remove even a smidge of that nuance is to not do it justice. The book is tremendously bizarre, funny, fucked up, but above all sad and almost upsetting. A lot like Tommy himself, it's an emotionally confusing experience. Franco's movie did a good job capturing an angle of the story, but the real thing with all it's bumps and unseemly drama is so, so much better.
I like to view movie adaptations of books as a sort of barebones telling of the book's material. Really, the movie was focused on the main beats that characterized the making of "The Room," relying on "The Disaster Artist" book for much of the background information that was otherwise unknown. The audience comes away knowing that Tommy is a weird, mysterious, largely unlikeable guy who managed to stumble into success in spite of himself. They come away knowing that Greg got wrapped up in Tommy's strange world largely out of a desire to further his own career and breakfree of his introverted habits (though obviously the movie simplfies this). They learn about the general struggles the cast and crew faced while working with such an obviously inept and unreasonable director/writer/producer like Tommy (though again, simplified for the sake of a ~1.5 hour movie). It definitely put a more positive spin on much of "The Room"'s production (such as how the cast sort of warmed to it because "Hey, I'm on the big screen"). I imagine that was in part to avoid negative backlash from Tommy. But also because everyone knows that "The Room" sucked, Tommy is weird AF, and the production was a trainwreck. Doing a movie that was closer to the book here in its depiction of Tommy and "The Room" would be almost kicking a dog while it's down (despite Tommy's cult success). Fortunately, I imagine this movie generated interest in Greg's book, so more will learn about the "truer" darker aspects of the story.
I loved both the movie and the book but i have to say that you do present some very valid points here. Nevertheless, I do think that the movie works perfectly fine when looking at it as its own thing. Great video though !
What people want from an adaptation (or even just a story) is definitely subjective. So I get that people would love The Disaster Artist for what it is, it just definitely wasn't what I was hoping for.
I think the movie doesn't do justice to Greg Sestero. Not as an author, but as a character. They pretty much did an 180° on him: he was cautious and resisting in the book, knowing full well The Room was going to be a freaking disaster. He participated because he needed the money, not because he believed it would further his career. In the movie however, he is portrayed as oblivious and extremely naive, like he's 14. Dumb 14.
I thought the suicide thing was supposed to be an exaggeration of what tommy felt in that moment. Like he was the joke and everyone was laughing at him and his art and it crushed his soul
Here is my take... When I watched the movie in theaters I had to drive about 2 hours to do so. It was my favorite book come to life on the silver screen about my two favorite people of all time. I loved every second of it, and I watched from beginning to the end of the credits. As a content creator, as a live performer... this movie meant so much to me. The book is something I've listened to probably a dozen times. The story never gets old, and I always genuinely want to go just a little beyond the pages. As you said the book is a bit more dark in terms of character relationships, and the actions we see. The book doesn't paint Tommy as a saint, but is indeed sympathetic. Tommy being my hero, I can't help but find it to be a better depiction because it's a more human one. A true one that makes me think I can get there too. What does this mean? This means that to me, they are both valid, and they both tell the story in a different way. Tommy and Greg both see this story from a different light. We will never know the truth, but that is half the fun.
Yeah, geez, the scene with the audience cheering on Johnny shooting himself was in really poor taste. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that was jarring.
I guess that since suspension of disbelief was basically nonexistent the audience watched it as an extremely ridiculous dark comedy (which would be a fair assessment, after all the character of Tommy Wisseau laughed when he heard a woman being sent to the hospital after her boyfriend beat her). It's not like they wished the actor to off himself.
The patten Slice9900 I agree the Franco brothers don’t look like each other must which works for the movie. But Dave Franco’s gee golly portrayal of Tommy was one note and very limited
@@Slice2099 You've got to be kidding. Greg is very tall and Dave is shorter than James. Other than that, Dave's portrayal of Greg is completely wrong. Greg wanted Ryan Gosling to play himself, which would've worked, but I think Armie Hammer also could've worked with the British charactor actor Jared Harris playing Tommy. The relationship would've been more believable, but the main issue with the movie is the script shifts the focus away from the relationship of the book and fabricates away much of the ambivalence which makes the book brilliant.
@@razorbeard6970 I think Ryan Gosling had nailed it it would had been better than LA La Land I hater that movie.This would've and could've won a Oscar.
I think the biggest problem was the changes they made to Greg. Beyond Dave Franco not really capturing the actual Greg, and the obvious physical differences, they changed a lot. They changed his motivation, the way he views Tommy, but more importantly what he stands for. The book showcases, simply, that not everyone can make it. It takes more than just a pretty face or hard work. It wasn't that Greg was super shy, or that he was afraid of the big scene, he's one of the many unlucky people in hollywood. A drop in the "people who didn't get a big break" bucket. People work their asses off and never make it. The whole book was kind of an allegory of this, which the movie totally misses. It doesn't show that you can be talented but still unlucky, or hard working and still fail. Also the beard looked super fake.
I like the movie, but I love the book. I've listened to the audio book twice and was really excited for the film. But you nailed all of my critisicms with the movie. I really wish they hadn't changed Greg's motivations and feelings on the room, especially the Brian Cranston bit which is easily my most disliked scene in that film. I also wouldve really preferred the film to tackle the first half of the story better as you mentioned.
I also both read the book and saw the movie and I was struck by how abusive the friendship was in the book. Tommy becomes extremely controlling and manipulative every time it seems that Greg might be slipping away from his control. There's also a bit more misogyny. Even in the film it's clear Tommy has an issue with professional women, but in the book you get the feeling that Greg is rooting for Tommy to stick it to them even while being too careful of his image to act the same way himself. However, I mostly think Tommy Wiseau liked the movie because he's played by a hot dude.
Hey do you remember in the book when Tommy tries to "spite" Greg by showing up with a "Greg Replacement" dude. When Greg had moved to hollywood and was starting to get some mild success, and he was too "busy" to answer Tommy's incessant phone call messages!!
I’ll be honest, I think that the movie didn’t live up to the hype, maybe just because it was so hyped up, like with a lot of the Franco/ rogen movies ex; This is the end, the interview. But I think that whole experience of the promotion of the movie and the awards received afterwards was just a great landmark for the whole “The Room” experience. To see Tommy Wisseau at y’all shows and award shows was amazing! And I think that the only way to make all this happen was to not embarrass Tommy, but like what you said, to make him an underdog hero.
Would this movie have been better with a persistent narrator telling us Greg's thoughts and inner turmoil? I feel like the transition from a book with a strong central narration, to a movie that removes that, can be really rough without a lot of adaptation. I remember being astounded at the level of honesty about Tommy in the book. I did think, with such a prideful guy, like what did Tommy actually think about the book, and the 40 percent quote is, well. About what I'd expect. I agree that the book is still positive on Tommy, the hopeful dreamer who never gives up is a part of that, but it's also way more honest. The little human touches, like him finding the photos of a smiling, younger Tommy, and then wondering how he became somebody with such a dead-eyed stare and demeanor, 'something terrible must have happened to him'. I found a really hopeful message just in the fact that two people so wildly different could ever, possibly, be friends and work together. Like, Tommy is essentially an alien, everyone's made the jokes about him from being [undefined country] and not understanding humans and whatnot. We don't typically think we can befriend somebody so different, but there are common elements, like their dreams of making movies, the moments they share. The way that Tommy's attitude breaks through the constant malaise of Hollywood As Usual, which includes a lot of him being a prick to others, but for somebody struggling in the gears of that machine, I could feel Greg's exhilaration at seeing somebody just refuse to go along, and avoid all the usual punishments and pressures that come with it. I never in my wildest dreams thought, when starting the book, that I could see Tommy Wiseau as a symbol of any kind of hope, but there it is. While still being just as entertained and fascinated as ever by this wierd... alien... man. And it's really sad to hear the movie takes out Greg's frank, dry wit, because he had me dying over and over with the way he just pointed out that Tommy is, you know, nuts, or did something absurd to the point of weeping hilarity.
I liked the movie as well, but after having just finished the audiobook I was very frustrated while watching it. In hindsight it's worth seeing, but I recommend people do so before reading or listening to the book.
I met Greg last month during a local screening of the Room. I had seen the Disaster Artist & it was my first time watching the Room, and I bought a signed copy of the book when I met him. Honestly, I’m not done reading it but so far it’s left a bad impression of not only Tommy, but also him in my mind. He understood that he was sticking around Tommy for so long because he felt like he could get somewhere being near him, then tried to cut him off when he got his apartment. justifiably, Tommy was doing some wierd stuff at the time but Greg had started his career and stopped talking to him for a while. If it wasn’t for the apartment and his feeling of owing Tommy, I believe that he’d had ditched him long ago. Despite all this, he still works with Tommy. They released two films together in 2017 & 2018 called Friends and it’s sequel. They’ve both worked on several different projects before this, but not together. Though when Friends was announced people started talking about them again. Over 20 years later and Greg is still doing the same thing.
In the version of the book I read, it had a foreword from James Franco, with the main takeaway line being "Tommy cest moi" (or something like that, I'm not French). It kinda says to me that Franco viewed Tommy for the underdog elements which he found in himself. When I read it, I saw Tommy's fear of alienation, his jealousy for Greg, even his anger at the world that kept him from his dream. Franco just saw the dream.
The worst thing about the adaptation is that in real life Greg is a chad, he seems to be extremely embarrassed and awkward whenever he is around Tommy, but he tries to play it off and be cool about it. The relationship between the two is comical. In the movie he is a short wimp who worships Tommy, gets overly emotional and overreacts all the time. The movie version looks like he is about to cry any minute while the real real Greg has the ''I am dead inside, kill me'' look on his face 24/7. This is not the kind of guy I imagine going ''wohoo Tommy, ur da best! Hold my pinkie finger!''
Agreed, lol. Real life Greg comes off as a stoic and very shy and introverted person who is probably almost as difficult to get under as Tommy, if in a different way. He often doesn't really make eye contact and seems like he constantly wants to run away from Tommy's presence.
Great work. I also felt that the book was more thought-provoking and frankly, frustrating and moving at the same time. I’m curious what you think of this: For me, I actually thought the movie was more of a love letter from James to Dave. Although I think Franco probably thought this would be a fun challenge as an actor and a filmmaker, I got the feeling that he loves his brother very much and he had been looking for a project that they could do together that would portray their relationship. This may sound like a ridiculous comparison, but I’m reminded of when Polanski made The Pianist. Sure, it wasn’t his story, but he’d been looking for a story about the Holocaust for years and felt the connection to the material. Same with Scorsese saying he’d been waiting his whole life for the book Goodfellas would eventually become. So I definitely agree. Not a great adaptation. I think James responded to the material as a story about two metaphorical brothers and was less interested in the psychology of Wiseau and especially Sestero and certainly not interested in the warts and all behind the scenes depiction. Personally, I hated that it isn’t even shown how he kept everyone waiting for hours on the first day, or the other actor cast as Mark being replaced in that weird, passive aggressive sense, or even the way he went through like 3 DP’s just to get through the production. Great video.
I remember when I first saw the trailer and saw the Franco brothers starring it, I thought, "Aww, that's nice, they're doing a project together!" Dave's been in a lot of movies as major and minor characters before but I don't think I've ever seen him play a main protagonist before. Maybe James, with more leading roles under his belt, wanted to extend that opportunity to his younger brother and generally have a good time on set together. And maybe that's why Greg's character got warped from a withdrawn and reluctant actor in The Room to one that was enthusiastic and devoted to Tommy's passion for the film; it was Dave and James emulating their real-life family love and care for each other.
This is a good take on James Franco's vision for the time. I was also surprise that the Disaster Artist film left out the most chaotic elements of The Room's production. It would have been interesting to see that film touch on Tommy's past since it was addressed in such a moving way in the book.
One thing I'd say is that just because a movie is a bad adaptation doesn't mean it's a bad movie. In the comments you said that you liked the movie, but it could've been better if it was more like the book. I agree that they took a different approach with the movie (and I agree that from a storytelling perspective this impacted the tone of the movie greatly), but I don't know what happened in real life, so I couldn't tell if the book is more faithful to the real life than the movie. I just judge them separately. In the end I really liked both the book and the movie, but each for different reasons.
I totally agree, and I always try to judge a book separately from a film. Plenty of great films aren't amazing adaptations. Annihilation which I loved, is a great example. Obviously I can't experience what it's like to have seen the movie without reading the book. But even when I consider the movie as a stand alone thing, it's not as good as I think it could have been. It still feels shallow to me. It's not a mediocre movie because it didn't have that stuff and the book did. It's a mediocre movie because it's mediocre and lacks depth, you could fix that in a variety of ways, but the most obvious to me would seem to be to make the heart of the story more similar to the book.
Maybe my view is different because I experienced the three media in a different order. Mine was: The Room, The Disaster Artist movie, The Disaster Artist book.
I really love the book. I read it and then listened to the audio version a couple years later. It’s hard to convince people that the story is complex, dark, and beautiful because they see Tommy as only comical. It’s a great story and the movie missed the mark.
Greg's impression of Tommy is absolutely better than Franco partially due to his exposure to his voice as a friend and also because he grew up with a parent who is a strong native French speaker with an accent. Being from within the same area of Europe, it's easier to approximate the dialects if you master one. He captures the various tones and colors of Tommy's unique inflection better which give a much better indication of Tommy's personality.
Honestly, Franco just came off as though he was just doing a SNL skit for two hours. He wasn't the worst casting choice out there, but he definitely wasn't the best either. Someone like Joaquin Phoenix could've probably added much more heart and depth to the role.
Excellent video. I liked the movie but the book delivered a more raw and honest story, even despite the possibility of Greg changing details as you mentioned. By the way, I’m interested in what your thoughts are on the terrible adaptation of The Glass Castle, which may be the pinnacle of bad adaptations.
If we think about it, isn't interesting that we got to see two visions of the same story, one with greg's point of view and the other sith tommy, each one of them had different perspectives on what reaaly happen and it is up to us to decide what was real about each one of them
Yes. Excellent video. I really enjoyed "The Disaster Artist," but there was one thing I couldn't pinpoint that made the movie short of amazing, and you've hit the nail on the head!
Very fair assessment. By the way I came to the whole The Room universe through surfing Audible and finding this by chance. I'd never heard of The Room, but I got totally hooked. The book is brilliantly read by Greg Sestero in probably the performance of his career. And knowing it is his own story makes it an even better listen. The warmth and sincerity of his caring about Tommy really comes over, and there are some genuine laugh out loud moments.
It pissed me off that they cut how Tommy originally had a different actor for Mark and how Tommy shot the Mark scenes with both Greg and the other actor but only had them roll cameras for Greg.
Totally agree with the conclusion of your comparison. The book is a freakin' masterpiece! Wiseau, as there presented, is hilarious, inexplicable and even quite scary. [There was not one point in the book where I could have predicted what Wiseau was going to say or do next.] In the movie adaptation, by comparison, he is reduced to a sort of Borat.
Simply put, I read the book (loved it), saw The Disaster Artist (a one and done (a "meh")), and re=read the book again and realized why I wasn't crazy about the movie. Scenes that never happened were put in the movie while scenes that clearly defined Greg and Tommy's relationship from beginning to end were not included. The movie is shallow but entertaining but it lacks the depth that would make The Disaster Artist a great examination of two people's story. If there's anything you can take away from my comment is this: BUY THE BOOK! You'll LOVE IT!
THANK YOU for making this. I cannot agree more. Throughout the whole film the Franco brothers are playing Johnny and Mark but never really Tommy and Greg. The best most personal parts of the story were left out to focus on ‘Easter eggs’ for The Room instead.
The movie serves as an introduction To tommy and his craziness. It’s something palatable for the widest possible audience, and it needed to be because, let’s face it, this shit is super niche. Then, once people are fascinated, they can watch the room and/or read the book.
The story of their friendship as depicted in the book doesn't make for a fun hollywood story. I grew sadder as the book progressed and it seemed Greg was completely over Tommy. But the book ends there while in reality they rekindled their friendship in the last few years, the Franco's said that having them not friends in the movie isn't true to how they are today and they felt they had to change it
I think movie is good companion piece for the book. I watched movie first and then I wanted to know what was left over from the book, so I started to read that too. And I'm not a book person per se, but movie makes me color those pages (specially when I have problem imagining things based of text and have dyslexia) and wanting to read book so much more.
Then get the audio book, narrated by Greg Sestero himself. Trust me, it's an enormous amount of fun. Plus, Greg does an excellent Tommy's impression, much better than James Franco. Here's an excerpt: watch?v=K40IToeN51Y
The scene in the Cinema that depicts The Room Suicide Scene, I agree. In real life, People react that way to it now that it's a cult film. But at the Premiere, before it was so popular, no one would've done that then.
I loved that you mentioned that even Greg's story could be subjective. It goes to show that everyone has their own truth, and adapting it into something material, like a book or a movie is simply revealing your truth to the world. Some may like it, some may not, but there's always a little something for everyone's taste 😊
Such a great video, I agree with you. The last chapter of Disaster artist moved me to the extent movie could not because of the portrayal of Tommy's journey.
Thank you for this. I watched the movie baffled. I felt like Tommy Wissue was abusive towards Greg, making him sacrifice literally everything for a film that was, well, shit. I was expecting at the end for Greg to come to his senses, to realize what kind of relationship he had with this mysterious man. But in the end, it was all played off as okay. I haven't read the book, but now I'm very interested. I still really enjoy the film, and felt like the performances were really good. But I want to know more about what was really going on between the two main characters of this real life story. I felt like I was missing something by the end. I will definitely be picking up this book. Maybe try and read it in my spare time before school starts.
The movie told the story people wanted. It gave exact recreations of all the famous scenes from The Room. It’s a fun romp through the behind the scenes and since Tommy comes off as this wild character, it’s fun and lighthearted with a well-meaning protagonist in Tommy. The book was a retelling of a stressful time and it holds Tommy responsible for problems he may not have even comprehended. It doesn’t try to tell a version of the story people want to hear. It tells one truth from one perspective.
Great work, Thomas. I had a similar feeling after watching The Disaster Artist. At one level I enjoyed the movie, but there was so much more about Tommy that I wanted to know. Just subscribed to your channel. Keep on making such amazing videos, brother.
I love both the book and the movie, but they are tonally as different as night and day. I agree with your opinion, and commend you on your analysis. I still find myself quoting this movie all the time with my wife. :) What a story, Mark!
This is a great video. I liked the movie and I agree with your points. I've listened to the audio book of the Disaster Artist many times. I don't think Greg was anywhere near as boyish or eager as Dave Franco portrayed him. I was also very interested in seeing some of the darker parts in the movie that were in books such as the night Greg got out of Tommy's car but those parts just weren't in the movie.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but what you brought up were some of my fears about the adaptation of the book. What I love about Greg's account about his relationship with Tommy and The Room is how brutally honest and raw it is. There were parts where I was uncomfortable and downright fearful for Greg's predicament when he was steadily getting sucked into Tommy's life and drama. To me, Tommy was a toxic friend who desperately wanted success but was spiteful and bitter when Greg had even a little of it for himself (i.e. when Greg got the lead part in Retro Puppet Master). When Greg even mentioned Tommy to others, even vaguely, Tommy went berserk. He hated that Greg had other people to talk to and rely on, whereas Tommy poured all of his emotional baggage onto Greg. It's especially unsettling because Tommy is about 20 years older but social cues and behaviour is completely alien to him. (Note: It's been a while since I read the book, but these were some of the impressions of Greg's story that have stuck with me. I might be remembering or interpreting some events incorrectly, so I might do another reread in the future just to clarify.)
I read the book the other day (saw the movie before). I agree with the author of the video, but I want to add the following. The movie and the book are essentially different, but both are good in their formats. I thoroughly enjoyed both watching and reading. I love both, but each in their own way. In their difference, I even see a big plus: they are perceived differently and you can re-read and revise with pleasure.
Just gonna say, the scene where the audience is chanting, if you go to a screening of the room, people yell at the screen, maybe not all are chanting “do it, do it” but they are people who say that and there’s people who say don’t do it, so that scene was just showing how people react to the movie. But even if with that said, good video. I haven’t read the book, but I’ve been wanting to for a while and I think I will now. So thanks lol
For all the ways they smoothed over Tommy, they made Greg a complete doofus, which I don’t think the real Greg is. I think real Greg was far more beaten down by the world and weirdly that bugged me more.
The scene cheering on Johnny’s death is the best part of the film and reflects the culture around going to see the room. It’s less but also more than the book.
I felt like the Disaster Artist was a great film, but I agree that it is not a faithful adaptation of the book. The dark, depressed, suicidal Tommy is barely touched on in the film. With that said, I read the book a week after the major theatrical release of the movie. Frankly, I was shocked at how Greg perceived Tommy but also floored by how dark Tommy was. Thinking back, the car accident that Tommy was in, his major relationship that failed, and Tommy's harsh life as a young adult in Eastern Europe all paint a different picture. The Room was created, as per Greg, as a means of creation and an outlet for pain rather than Tommy killing himself. Franco's role as Tommy seemed to be the highlight of the film with scene by scene recreation. Major themes were left out. Did audiences really want to see Franco impersonate Tommy or would the film have been better had Franco stayed more true to Greg's book?
I definitely think tact was a big part of Franco's adaptation. He can't put the same things to film that Greg, someone who was there, can put to the page.
i suppose it’s strange to take on characters who are still living people and to want to go into depth as it’d force tommy wiseau to be more public about the more difficult times in his life. it’s hard to want to make a movie about a real, living person’s struggles.
Over the course of many years, Greg Sestero has come to Tucson, AZ s sort of a showcase to meet him and hear some details about the movie. During this time you heard a lot of the real stories and turmoil. The multiple cast changes, the money being spent, and or course Sestero's reluctance to be in the movie. The Disaster Artist was made for the casual movie goer who had never heard of The Room and was largely dishonest. The Brian Cranston scene was the last straw for me and it proved that this was just a vehicle for Franco to show off his supposed "talent." I doubt any true fan of The Room would know this and the ending proved to be just another Hollywoodized ending. I mean this movie strained their friendship for years and it was dashed in one little false tidbit in the movie. Stay with the book and listen to Sestero when he come to your town, and you will hear some more definitive truths
In the book, a piece of the set falls on Kyle and he has to finish his scene with a concussion. It would have been great to see Nathan Fielder portray that.
That's why i think Tommy approve the movie more so than the book. The book is all sad and probably reminds him of those times while the movie is more light hearted.
I’m starting to think that while the book is obviously Greg’s interpretation of the story, I kinda feel like Franco’s film is coincidentally playing towards Tommy’s perspective because it shows him as the misunderstood hero, which might be what he thinks of himself as. I appreciate both the book and film for showing the story behind The Room in different lights.
Although I really liked the movie, your criticism is dead on correct. About Greg, I really related to him in the book because he came across as a wide eyed innocent to people, but internally he was incredibly smart and self aware. For example, in the book he was friends with Tommy because he was so unique and interesting, but he knew that he was a strange goofball. In the movie, Greg simplemindedly seems to think that Tommy is some kind of genius seemingly unaware that he was nuts.
I recently listened to the entirety of the audio book, and it was an amazing experience. The movie really doesn't do it justice, but I understand. Nonetheless the book does a much better job revealing the details. But I am concerned with the amount of tommy's personal details the Greg reveal in the book, since tommy clearly doesn't want the public to know about them
This is great.👌 Greg is the interesting key person. Want to read that book now. I wonder if he knew how Franco's movie would turn out and if - again, just like with "the room" - it was the right or wrong thing to do it.
I listened to the audio book. I can’t see how it’s not funny. He writes jokingly how he thinks Tommy is the zodiac killer. I’ve enjoyed them both. They are going to focus on different things. They can only fit so much into a 2 hour movie. They are going to focus on the on set antics and drama over Greg’s internal thoughts. A large portion of the book is pretty much Greg’s career autobiography. James Franco did watch all of the behind the scenes footage recorded by Tommy’s spy Marcus as well.
My order of things just recently in relation to The Disaster Artist are: 1) the novel that I finished last weekend (while watching clips of the movie for context, and it enhanced the experience greatly); 2) the movie adaptation that I watched last night (highlights of this movie for me are Franco's acting coz he has the "gist" of Tommy down per se and I didn't see Franco at all, and the reenactment of some scenes are always fun. Shoutout to Efron's Chris-R, haha); 3) videos about Best F(r)iends last night (yours and Nostalgia Critic's). And after all that, I can safely say that the book invoked more emotions from me (especially the part where Tommy had his meltdown when he found Greg was talking about him to other people like Greg's friend, but Greg thinking that he's only told them parts of Tommy that he's fond of, e.g. giving him hope at one of the worst times of his life). Moreover, what I was able to derive from Best F(r)iends is that movie displays more of the true nature of their relationship from the book (a.k.a. Greg's perspective) than The Disaster Artist movie, especially the confrontation scene between the characters by the end of Volume 1 that reminded me of the said meltdown from Tommy. But basically, yes. I agree with this video wholeheartedly. I won't say the movie itself isn't competent, coz it was made super well. From what it was able to take from the book- obviously, it had its liberties. It's Franco's perspective. I can see where they were going from with this, especially if the intention is to make it digestible, Tommy-approved, and make it something worth nominating in award ceremonies. Nevertheless, I was still disappointed at the end of it (subjectively speaking). Well, this comment got pretty long, and is for both this video and your Best F(r)iends one. I was so optimistic of what I was gonna see from the movie, but I should've expected a more lighthearted take on the novel. I didn't know where else to put this... critique and I need catharsis for this, haha. Oh well. Great video, by the way!
Yeah, I agree mostly with what you say. I was stoked to watch this movie when I first saw the trailer. And I read the book in between the time until it came out. I watched the movie twice (because I forgot to stay for the Tommy post credits scene the first time), and it was almost like 2 things. It seems that Franco wanted to focus ENTIRELY on the premise of "underdog wants to make movie, and he does but it's terrible", whereas the book doesn't do that. The book makes the actual making of the movie, and Tommy's involvement, a tip of the iceberg for his outlandish character, and everything that Cestero went through in the time he knew Tommy(pre making The Room, and whilst). But I knew right off the bat, especially when I watched the first trailer, that the movie was going to be Tommy-centric, and focused entirely on making the movie. So, I couldn't help but see the movie as its own thing as opposed to the trope of "the book is better". Because I loved the movie. But I also loved the book - I just didn't love them for the same reasons - That's where the disconnect is.
Great analysis. I always found mind-boggling that some of the people who presumably read the book also praised the movie. I think the movie is an inaccurate adaptation at its core; Greg Sestero's take on the described events, his reactions to them and motivation are some of the most interesting and enjoyable elements of the book. Like you said, he was a self-aware, skeptical dude who did things out of desperation-driven necessity, and Franco turned him into a drooling simpleton who didn't know any better. Loved Sestero's book. Hated Franco's movie.
Love how people some how take Greg's book as truth just because Wiseu does have his flaws, but Greg wrote a book to cash in as well as to make himself not look as bad as wiseu while also tryin to make Tommy look even worse.
The movie is more positive in portrayal of Tommy. That's why he prefers the adaptation. + Book goes into Tommy's past which he's very protective of. Also, originally the movie was supposed to end with Tommy and Greg parting ways but since nowadays they're good friends they've decided to reflect that.
There was an interview that said Tommy didn't even read anything close to the whole book, so I do think that his quirk had at least some part to do with it
I found the fact that the Tommy character was significantly taller than the Greg character distracting, as it's the inverse of their real life counterparts. How hard would it have been to have Dave stand on a riser and use forced perspective for full body scenes?
Greg's Impression of Tommy's voice is definitely better. James Franco's impression is good, but his voice is naturally deeper so it's a little off from what Tommy actually sounds like.
I really see the disaster artist movie as being the book, which is greg sesteros story, as retold by Tommy himself- it gives Tommy a clear and recognizable pathos that’s missing completely in the book; everything about how Tommy operates is a mystery, and the real drama of the book is Greg understanding how Tommy’s planet operates, and how it’ll reliably clash with the real world. The movie seems to clearly define how Tommy sees the world, and so the drama in the film is the irony that the audience already knows what Greg will ostensibly find out: people are very strange these days.
To me, this movie could have been so much more in terms of examining a complex yet close relationship yet all I see is the glorification of one man and the silencing of another. This movie seems like it is about the Room and Tommy and Greg's relationship, when it is only about Tommy. Everyone who worked on this etched out a path for one man and held no elaboration for the other. He just existed to be part of the Room is what this film said to me.
Ensgnblack After reading the book, James Franco saw the making of The Room as Tommy Wiseau wanting to do a project with his best friend Greg Sestero. He likely wanted to honor this by making his adaptation of “The Disaster Artist” as a project he could do with his brother.
To be honest, I like the movie for what it is: a story that tells us you can get there if you work hard enough, even if you suck. It's just a fun story to begin with, and there are a lot of comedic moments that kept me entertained throughout the film. That said, I will definitely read the book soon and see what the real story was (probably) like.
The movie's message is about egotism triumphing against adversity, while the message of the book is about the vulnerability of friendship and the dangers of getting lost in your ambitions. I really don't want to be such a stick in the mud, but the movie just feels like a glossy love letter about Hollywood, made by Hollywood, for Hollywood to pretend they where a part of the cult following since the beginning.
spot on!
Perfectly Put! Superb!
Brianna Kubiwood Well put. One can only agree
Accurate
I like to think of the ending at the premiere as a representation of the cult success the movie would eventually become
I watched the film and really enjoyed it but then I listened to the audio book and was blown away. Sestero's version of the story (arguably the more "true" story) was so much darker and stranger than I could have imagined. Even Sestero's Tommy voice, while it doesn't tonally sound like Wiseau, portrays a depth of pathos and oddness that goes beyond Franco's impression.The film portrays Tommy as just an eccentric fellow, but once I finished the audiobook I realized that he likely has borderline personality disorder.
Jonathan Williams My friends and I enjoy "the room" I read the book when it came out and agree with everything you said. When the "Disaster artist" came out my friends liked it because they saw it as a fun reenactment of "the room". I felt disappointed that it took very little from the book. My friends think a film really can't capture those kind of emotions from the book on screen. I believe it can be done.
Me too
Hm? Why BPD?
Not an expert, this is just the conclusion the book led me to based his behavior. Needy and unstable relationships, distorted self-image, impulsive behavior, extreme emotional swings, fear of abandonment. Basically, he's on his own "Tommy" planet, divorced from reality, and uses emotional manipulation to get others onto his side.
Ah, that's pretty interesting, good point.
My disappointment with the movie, having read the book first, was how disconnected the film's depiction of Greg as a person is from the person who comes across in the book, and how inaccurately it depicted Greg and Tommy's friendship. The Greg of the film is a naïve, credulous person who's not that smart, easily led, and full of eager, puppyish enthusiasm, whose loyalty and affection for Tommy only ever temporarily wavers before coming back stronger than ever, and plays the platonic, same-gender version of the "woman behind the man" catalyst for Tommy. The Greg of the book is a young person who is naïve only because of his youth, but not necessarily gullible and not stupid either. He's far more self-conscious and introverted and ultimately drawn to Tommy because of his need to get himself out of himself and let his freak flag fly. But he's also FREQUENTLY embarrassed by Tommy and questions their relationship and to some extent only stays in the friendship because of the financial benefits it afforded him (use of Tommy's LA apartment for a mere $200 a month). He defends Tommy to other people whilst also feeling exploited by the relationship and viewing it as manipulative and toxic. He knew right away that The Room was crap and didn't want to be involved, but ultimately did it because Tommy offered him a lot of money and he needed it badly, but was also ashamed of himself for his lack of integrity in doing so. Greg in the movie believes in the film and believes in Tommy uncritically. The truth of Greg and Tommy's relationship is complicated and ambivalent, and Greg is much more layered and far more aware person that Dave Franco's portrayal of him. While James captured Tommy to the letter, if a little more positively than deserved, Dave has nothing at all of Sestero's personality, appearance, or general affect. He's almost a completely different character than the actual Greg.
You know... I feel like that kind of portrayal, the one in the book, is important. Because watching something like the movie version of The Disaster Artist can make you feel like, wow, I wish I were that good of a friend; what's wrong with me? Not that I've ever been in that kind of situation, but... If I'm being honest, I couldn't imagine myself being just so accepting of someone like Tommy. He's so childish in the movie that... I don't think I could take him seriously. But the truth is that, neither could Greg, really. Real people are complicated.
I 100% agree with this.
Hakajin, Greg never really did take Tommy seriously even from the beginning, but enjoyed the relationship despite himself...but less so over time. In the book, he never made it clear why didn't end the relationship, particularly after moving out of his apartment. I definitely would have. As childish as he was in the movie, in the book he was WORSE . But yet, in a weird way, their inexplicable and somewhat unhealthy connection ultimately paid off in ways no one could have ever foreseen. To me, that's the heart of the book and what gets lost in the movie in favor of the Tommy-as-antihero narrative.
I mean, I imagine there was some sense of responsibility there, at least... I haven't read the book, so I can't really say, but I've definitely been in positions where I just didn't want to hurt someone.
Having read it, I felt it came off as passivity and fear of confrontation, but maybe they mutually used each other too. I felt that Tommy might have actually had some repressed sexual attraction to Greg, if Greg's narration is trusted to be reliable (at least more so than Tommy's would be). But when Tommy asked for Greg's opinion, Greg didn't tell the truth, he'd just tell him what he wanted to hear, and criticism was only ever given indirectly in a sugar coated fashion, so in that sense, Greg actually wasn't a good friend, though it doesn't seem that Tommy could have handled anyone being honest with him either. From that perspective, the Tommy-Greg bromance is actually FAR from what should be anyone's friendship goals.
Because I don't really make this clear in the video: I did enjoy Franco's movie, I just felt like it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been (for the reasons I talk about in the video).
Thomas Flight
Hello Thomas, I am huge fan of The Room, and The Disaster Artist (film and book) and I have met both Tommy and Greg at a screening and chatted with them for about 10 minutes last February.
They’re incredibly down-to-earth guys and they tell the most relatable stories to struggling artists, and I think they’re amazing at what they do. I read the book before I went to see the movie, and I agree with you to a certain extent. It is true that Franco and Rogen wanted to make a movie that was loyal to the original source, but on the same token, they wanted to make a commercial movie that tells a fascinating story about something that most people wouldn’t believe if they hadn’t heard of The Room/Tommy Wiseau before. The story is not really a tragedy to me, it’s just dark comedy.
As far as I know, there were contractual reasons for the movie being turned into this “dark comedy”, which is respectful to Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero’s story. Greg’s idea was to write a book hoping that it was later picked up and turned into a movie. He envisioned Javier Bardem as Tommy, and Ryan Gosling as himself. While negotiating with Tommy Wiseau to get his life rights, Franco, and especially Sestero, wanted to make sure that the movie gave Tommy enough credit for what he had accomplished, and for that, some of the darker chapters of the book had to be taken out of the screenplay, as Tommy was hurt after reading the book, and I believe that Greg didn’t want the film to explore Tommy’s three mysteries (where is he from, how old is he, and how did he get all his money), nor his suicide attempt.
The movie could have been so much better, and Franco has admitted in many interviews that a lot of footage was left out of the movie at Greg’s request, as he wanted the movie to end on a positive note. Furthermore, since Wiseau is known for his many legal issues with some of the actors who were in The Room, and was the one granting his life rights and the rights to use some of The Room’s scenes, I’m sure Franco decided not to expand the story and make a more Oscar-worthy movie, using some of the darker stuff of the book.
All in all Franco - the producer, director, and main actor of the movie - had to be extra careful with that as he NEEDED to make sure Tommy liked the movie. Tommy not liking the movie would have meant that the movie, instead of making 30 million dollars at the box office, would have made less than half that amount. In fact, after the Franco sexual assault scandals, TOMMY was the one who stood up and travelled everywhere to sell the blu-rays. Like Walter White, Tommy is the one who knocks.
I couldn’t agree more!
Thank you for this fantastic response. While I think my video lays out HOW the movie would have been better had it explored some of the darker themes, your comment does an excellent job of explaining all the reason WHY the movie didn't utilize those elements.
That's another layer of the difficulty of creating an adaptation. I tried to allude to some of that in my video when I talk about the fact that the movie is an adaptation of not just the book but also real life. This might be one of those cases where it wasn't possible to make the "best" version of the movie for a variety of reasons.
And at the end of the day, I think it's kinda nice that Tommy get's to have a movie about him that he likes. But the net result is that the book will remain one of my favorite books, and the movie will simply be a fun movie I saw a few times.
Thomas Flight did u make Minecraft at one time?
The journey to bedrock?
I agree with this 99.9 percent.
Ye, lighting in the starting of this video was a bit off.
@@darksideishere THANK YOU! Someone else saw it! Anakin I like you, you're smart, I see you doing great things in the future.
@@darksideishere Oh yeah, that's what he said. Sorry it's been a year.
So whats the 00.01% that you disagree with?
@@bongsnhell a little bit of lighting in the beginning
i feel like he was almost afraid of being honest about the character.
From the book it's clear, that Tommy is afraid looking bad in eyes of public. Pretty sure, he was the one who insisted on changing his persona for the movie, before signing contract for his "life right".
yea it would be up to him how it's presented you're right actually, I guess the movie couldn't be made any other way, still glad it was though. even if the movie was god awful it would at least bring attention to the book.
Yep. True that
OliverObz he wouldn’t give Franco the rights to his likeness if he wasn’t made sympathetic. Wiseau is extremely vain
Yea I think you're right :(
In interviews, the Franco brothers seemed confused by Greg’s motivation to perform in the Room. In the book, his motivation was simple: Tommy finally made Greg a financial offer he couldn’t refuse. Up until that point Greg’s loyalty ended with helping Tommy out behind the scenes.
What a story Thomas
You can say that again.
Thomas Flight I’m so happy I have you as my best friend and I love (insert girl you know here) so much.
Sestero only accepted to be in the movie after Tommy offered a shit ton of money, not because he "loved" his friend so much. They were actually 2 parasites feeding on each other. The book does a great job showing how weird and unhealthy their relationship was. The movie would have been more interesting if it portrayed their relationship like that.
But then it wouldn't have been as funny.
@@johnmellor932 the book is funnier tbh. dkm
Maybe somebody also edited Franco's script so it could sell off 😁
I think its more a lot of people use Tommy, including Greg.
Also, Franco boiled down Tommy as being a mean, selfish, oblivious, and controlling person (one dimensional). Greg's description of Tommy is a weird person who seems selfless, at first. Then he becomes mean and monstrous... then by the end he is a man who has bad aspects but at the end if just a man in pain.
They also specifically added things to the movie that was specifically said didn't happen in real life. Tommy didn't point out Juliet's acne when she was naked during the sex scene, she was wearing a "hideous" shirt. During the sex scene everyone who wanted to be chivalrous and get Tommy off of Juliet held back those urges... "but what if we mix the incidences, and add that they DID pull him off?!" Tommy never fired anyone, people constantly quit. In the movie, he fired the guy for pulling him off Juliet. And if he did fire people, the crew saw it as a blessing, no one begged for their jobs back.
He fired the actors originally cast for Mark and Michelle. If I remember correctly he also fired the actress originally cast for Lisa.
He did point out her acne when they were shooting the sex scene
What bothers me most about the movie is that dave franco doesnt even try to sound like greg sestero which becomes only more apparent next to james francos great impression
So clear franko didn't want to bother looking for a real look alike for him. Which is a shame because the rest of the cast was so spot on in looks or nature. Dave was so wrong for the part.
Yeah, Dave Franco's Greg is excitable, enthusiastic, eager, and boyish like a friendly puppy. When you watch Greg Sestero in an interview though, his body language is a tad stiff and his vocal mannerisms are extremely laid back, his general demeanor calm and even a tad aloof. I can't really picture him screaming "YEAH LETS DO IT!"- he's more like, "Um, yeah...sure, let's do it. Why not?" Nothing about Dave Franco was like Greg, not his body language and posture, not his speech, not his appearance, nothing. Not even the blond hair and ridiculous fake beard, which made him look kind of ugly. (Which I found rather ironic, that in real life Tommy is freaky looking and Greg is a model, in the film James as Tommy is actually hot and Dave as Greg is the goofy looking one.)
moonlily1 you do have to give Dave Franco Credit for his performance though. In my opinion it’s great that they got the Franco brothers to play the protagonists because if you are friends with someone for a really long time, you are like brothers in a way. It also adds to the depth of their respective characters, they basically argue and say things to each other the same way brothers do.
I think it's too noticable that it's a fake beard and hair. Feels like he's only on the movie because his brother is
@@masturch33f87 That fake beard is too funny. Almost felt intentional
The ending was a betrayal, the movie did not became an instant cult classic hit, it took a few years with early pre social media internet to be well known
The ending to Greg's book is a serious punch in the gut. It was beautiful.
The Disaster Artist is a fun underdog comedy/drama. They had to condense a five year epic into two hours and they did fine. I loved it but I’m biased to the cast and story itself.
Had it been a mini series that was able to lay out everything from book-showing us all of Greg’s past, keep the over lapping timelines, etc-it could have been a near masterpiece.
Thats important to point out too, exploring character is much easier in a show.
Felt the same. Adaptations aren’t about the details it’s about the heart of the story and Franco barely scratched the surface of Tommy.
I'm so glad this video got made. The disaster artist book absolutely blew me away. I was shocked by how dramatic and compelling it ended up being. I bought it for the wacky anecdotes from the filming, but I ended up getting one of the best stories I've ever read. To do this story and remove even a smidge of that nuance is to not do it justice. The book is tremendously bizarre, funny, fucked up, but above all sad and almost upsetting. A lot like Tommy himself, it's an emotionally confusing experience.
Franco's movie did a good job capturing an angle of the story, but the real thing with all it's bumps and unseemly drama is so, so much better.
I like to view movie adaptations of books as a sort of barebones telling of the book's material. Really, the movie was focused on the main beats that characterized the making of "The Room," relying on "The Disaster Artist" book for much of the background information that was otherwise unknown. The audience comes away knowing that Tommy is a weird, mysterious, largely unlikeable guy who managed to stumble into success in spite of himself. They come away knowing that Greg got wrapped up in Tommy's strange world largely out of a desire to further his own career and breakfree of his introverted habits (though obviously the movie simplfies this). They learn about the general struggles the cast and crew faced while working with such an obviously inept and unreasonable director/writer/producer like Tommy (though again, simplified for the sake of a ~1.5 hour movie).
It definitely put a more positive spin on much of "The Room"'s production (such as how the cast sort of warmed to it because "Hey, I'm on the big screen"). I imagine that was in part to avoid negative backlash from Tommy. But also because everyone knows that "The Room" sucked, Tommy is weird AF, and the production was a trainwreck. Doing a movie that was closer to the book here in its depiction of Tommy and "The Room" would be almost kicking a dog while it's down (despite Tommy's cult success).
Fortunately, I imagine this movie generated interest in Greg's book, so more will learn about the "truer" darker aspects of the story.
I loved both the movie and the book but i have to say that you do present some very valid points here. Nevertheless, I do think that the movie works perfectly fine when looking at it as its own thing. Great video though !
What people want from an adaptation (or even just a story) is definitely subjective. So I get that people would love The Disaster Artist for what it is, it just definitely wasn't what I was hoping for.
I think the movie doesn't do justice to Greg Sestero. Not as an author, but as a character. They pretty much did an 180° on him: he was cautious and resisting in the book, knowing full well The Room was going to be a freaking disaster. He participated because he needed the money, not because he believed it would further his career. In the movie however, he is portrayed as oblivious and extremely naive, like he's 14. Dumb 14.
I thought the suicide thing was supposed to be an exaggeration of what tommy felt in that moment. Like he was the joke and everyone was laughing at him and his art and it crushed his soul
Here is my take... When I watched the movie in theaters I had to drive about 2 hours to do so. It was my favorite book come to life on the silver screen about my two favorite people of all time. I loved every second of it, and I watched from beginning to the end of the credits. As a content creator, as a live performer... this movie meant so much to me.
The book is something I've listened to probably a dozen times. The story never gets old, and I always genuinely want to go just a little beyond the pages. As you said the book is a bit more dark in terms of character relationships, and the actions we see. The book doesn't paint Tommy as a saint, but is indeed sympathetic. Tommy being my hero, I can't help but find it to be a better depiction because it's a more human one. A true one that makes me think I can get there too.
What does this mean? This means that to me, they are both valid, and they both tell the story in a different way. Tommy and Greg both see this story from a different light. We will never know the truth, but that is half the fun.
Yeah, geez, the scene with the audience cheering on Johnny shooting himself was in really poor taste. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt that was jarring.
I guess that since suspension of disbelief was basically nonexistent the audience watched it as an extremely ridiculous dark comedy (which would be a fair assessment, after all the character of Tommy Wisseau laughed when he heard a woman being sent to the hospital after her boyfriend beat her). It's not like they wished the actor to off himself.
@@DreamOfTheRebel Sure, but still. Even for a dark comedy it seems overly mean-spirited.
I love when people overreact over meaningless things and your comment perfectly exemplifies that.
Boo hoo.
It's called dark humour...
Francos brother was such a bad choice to play mark...he looks more like the "me underwears guy"...they r like twins honestly
Princef Taaanx What are you talking about they don’t look like that much Dave Franco killed it as Greg
The patten Slice9900 I agree the Franco brothers don’t look like each other must which works for the movie. But Dave Franco’s gee golly portrayal of Tommy was one note and very limited
@@Slice2099 You've got to be kidding. Greg is very tall and Dave is shorter than James. Other than that, Dave's portrayal of Greg is completely wrong. Greg wanted Ryan Gosling to play himself, which would've worked, but I think Armie Hammer also could've worked with the British charactor actor Jared Harris playing Tommy. The relationship would've been more believable, but the main issue with the movie is the script shifts the focus away from the relationship of the book and fabricates away much of the ambivalence which makes the book brilliant.
@@razorbeard6970 I think Ryan Gosling had nailed it it would had been better than LA La Land I hater that movie.This would've and could've won a Oscar.
The film is an inspirationpiece. The book is an examination of what makes a friendship.
Franco’s Tommy doesn’t touch Greg’s Tommy in the audio book. No one does a better Tommy.
I think the biggest problem was the changes they made to Greg. Beyond Dave Franco not really capturing the actual Greg, and the obvious physical differences, they changed a lot. They changed his motivation, the way he views Tommy, but more importantly what he stands for. The book showcases, simply, that not everyone can make it. It takes more than just a pretty face or hard work. It wasn't that Greg was super shy, or that he was afraid of the big scene, he's one of the many unlucky people in hollywood. A drop in the "people who didn't get a big break" bucket. People work their asses off and never make it. The whole book was kind of an allegory of this, which the movie totally misses. It doesn't show that you can be talented but still unlucky, or hard working and still fail. Also the beard looked super fake.
I like the movie, but I love the book. I've listened to the audio book twice and was really excited for the film. But you nailed all of my critisicms with the movie. I really wish they hadn't changed Greg's motivations and feelings on the room, especially the Brian Cranston bit which is easily my most disliked scene in that film. I also wouldve really preferred the film to tackle the first half of the story better as you mentioned.
When Tommy says "I approve 40%" and "I approve 40%"
It's not about accuracy. It's about which one makes him look better.
I also both read the book and saw the movie and I was struck by how abusive the friendship was in the book. Tommy becomes extremely controlling and manipulative every time it seems that Greg might be slipping away from his control. There's also a bit more misogyny. Even in the film it's clear Tommy has an issue with professional women, but in the book you get the feeling that Greg is rooting for Tommy to stick it to them even while being too careful of his image to act the same way himself.
However, I mostly think Tommy Wiseau liked the movie because he's played by a hot dude.
Hey do you remember in the book when Tommy tries to "spite" Greg by showing up with a "Greg Replacement" dude. When Greg had moved to hollywood and was starting to get some mild success, and he was too "busy" to answer Tommy's incessant phone call messages!!
I’ll be honest, I think that the movie didn’t live up to the hype, maybe just because it was so hyped up, like with a lot of the Franco/ rogen movies ex; This is the end, the interview. But I think that whole experience of the promotion of the movie and the awards received afterwards was just a great landmark for the whole “The Room” experience. To see Tommy Wisseau at y’all shows and award shows was amazing! And I think that the only way to make all this happen was to not embarrass Tommy, but like what you said, to make him an underdog hero.
Would this movie have been better with a persistent narrator telling us Greg's thoughts and inner turmoil? I feel like the transition from a book with a strong central narration, to a movie that removes that, can be really rough without a lot of adaptation. I remember being astounded at the level of honesty about Tommy in the book. I did think, with such a prideful guy, like what did Tommy actually think about the book, and the 40 percent quote is, well. About what I'd expect. I agree that the book is still positive on Tommy, the hopeful dreamer who never gives up is a part of that, but it's also way more honest.
The little human touches, like him finding the photos of a smiling, younger Tommy, and then wondering how he became somebody with such a dead-eyed stare and demeanor, 'something terrible must have happened to him'.
I found a really hopeful message just in the fact that two people so wildly different could ever, possibly, be friends and work together. Like, Tommy is essentially an alien, everyone's made the jokes about him from being [undefined country] and not understanding humans and whatnot. We don't typically think we can befriend somebody so different, but there are common elements, like their dreams of making movies, the moments they share. The way that Tommy's attitude breaks through the constant malaise of Hollywood As Usual, which includes a lot of him being a prick to others, but for somebody struggling in the gears of that machine, I could feel Greg's exhilaration at seeing somebody just refuse to go along, and avoid all the usual punishments and pressures that come with it.
I never in my wildest dreams thought, when starting the book, that I could see Tommy Wiseau as a symbol of any kind of hope, but there it is.
While still being just as entertained and fascinated as ever by this wierd... alien... man. And it's really sad to hear the movie takes out Greg's frank, dry wit, because he had me dying over and over with the way he just pointed out that Tommy is, you know, nuts, or did something absurd to the point of weeping hilarity.
As someone who loved the book and only liked the movie, I agree with a lot being discussed here
I liked the movie as well, but after having just finished the audiobook I was very frustrated while watching it. In hindsight it's worth seeing, but I recommend people do so before reading or listening to the book.
I met Greg last month during a local screening of the Room. I had seen the Disaster Artist & it was my first time watching the Room, and I bought a signed copy of the book when I met him.
Honestly, I’m not done reading it but so far it’s left a bad impression of not only Tommy, but also him in my mind. He understood that he was sticking around Tommy for so long because he felt like he could get somewhere being near him, then tried to cut him off when he got his apartment. justifiably, Tommy was doing some wierd stuff at the time but Greg had started his career and stopped talking to him for a while. If it wasn’t for the apartment and his feeling of owing Tommy, I believe that he’d had ditched him long ago.
Despite all this, he still works with Tommy. They released two films together in 2017 & 2018 called Friends and it’s sequel. They’ve both worked on several different projects before this, but not together. Though when Friends was announced people started talking about them again.
Over 20 years later and Greg is still doing the same thing.
In the version of the book I read, it had a foreword from James Franco, with the main takeaway line being "Tommy cest moi" (or something like that, I'm not French). It kinda says to me that Franco viewed Tommy for the underdog elements which he found in himself. When I read it, I saw Tommy's fear of alienation, his jealousy for Greg, even his anger at the world that kept him from his dream.
Franco just saw the dream.
The worst thing about the adaptation is that in real life Greg is a chad, he seems to be extremely embarrassed and awkward whenever he is around Tommy, but he tries to play it off and be cool about it. The relationship between the two is comical.
In the movie he is a short wimp who worships Tommy, gets overly emotional and overreacts all the time. The movie version looks like he is about to cry any minute while the real real Greg has the ''I am dead inside, kill me'' look on his face 24/7. This is not the kind of guy I imagine going ''wohoo Tommy, ur da best! Hold my pinkie finger!''
John Red omg this is so true lol I can't imagine Greg doing the Pinky and howling thing
How can anybody take you seriously when you use the word 'Chad' unironically.
Agreed, lol. Real life Greg comes off as a stoic and very shy and introverted person who is probably almost as difficult to get under as Tommy, if in a different way. He often doesn't really make eye contact and seems like he constantly wants to run away from Tommy's presence.
Great work. I also felt that the book was more thought-provoking and frankly, frustrating and moving at the same time. I’m curious what you think of this: For me, I actually thought the movie was more of a love letter from James to Dave. Although I think Franco probably thought this would be a fun challenge as an actor and a filmmaker, I got the feeling that he loves his brother very much and he had been looking for a project that they could do together that would portray their relationship. This may sound like a ridiculous comparison, but I’m reminded of when Polanski made The Pianist. Sure, it wasn’t his story, but he’d been looking for a story about the Holocaust for years and felt the connection to the material. Same with Scorsese saying he’d been waiting his whole life for the book Goodfellas would eventually become.
So I definitely agree. Not a great adaptation. I think James responded to the material as a story about two metaphorical brothers and was less interested in the psychology of Wiseau and especially Sestero and certainly not interested in the warts and all behind the scenes depiction. Personally, I hated that it isn’t even shown how he kept everyone waiting for hours on the first day, or the other actor cast as Mark being replaced in that weird, passive aggressive sense, or even the way he went through like 3 DP’s just to get through the production.
Great video.
I remember when I first saw the trailer and saw the Franco brothers starring it, I thought, "Aww, that's nice, they're doing a project together!" Dave's been in a lot of movies as major and minor characters before but I don't think I've ever seen him play a main protagonist before. Maybe James, with more leading roles under his belt, wanted to extend that opportunity to his younger brother and generally have a good time on set together.
And maybe that's why Greg's character got warped from a withdrawn and reluctant actor in The Room to one that was enthusiastic and devoted to Tommy's passion for the film; it was Dave and James emulating their real-life family love and care for each other.
This is a good take on James Franco's vision for the time. I was also surprise that the Disaster Artist film left out the most chaotic elements of The Room's production. It would have been interesting to see that film touch on Tommy's past since it was addressed in such a moving way in the book.
One thing I'd say is that just because a movie is a bad adaptation doesn't mean it's a bad movie. In the comments you said that you liked the movie, but it could've been better if it was more like the book. I agree that they took a different approach with the movie (and I agree that from a storytelling perspective this impacted the tone of the movie greatly), but I don't know what happened in real life, so I couldn't tell if the book is more faithful to the real life than the movie. I just judge them separately. In the end I really liked both the book and the movie, but each for different reasons.
I totally agree, and I always try to judge a book separately from a film. Plenty of great films aren't amazing adaptations. Annihilation which I loved, is a great example.
Obviously I can't experience what it's like to have seen the movie without reading the book. But even when I consider the movie as a stand alone thing, it's not as good as I think it could have been. It still feels shallow to me. It's not a mediocre movie because it didn't have that stuff and the book did. It's a mediocre movie because it's mediocre and lacks depth, you could fix that in a variety of ways, but the most obvious to me would seem to be to make the heart of the story more similar to the book.
Maybe my view is different because I experienced the three media in a different order. Mine was: The Room, The Disaster Artist movie, The Disaster Artist book.
I didnt even like the casting of Greg. He didnt have Gregs classic beauty and vapid indifference.
Yep, just an excuse by James Franco to star in a movie with his brother
I really love the book. I read it and then listened to the audio version a couple years later. It’s hard to convince people that the story is complex, dark, and beautiful because they see Tommy as only comical. It’s a great story and the movie missed the mark.
haha it missed the MARK
I think you are about 40% accurate.
Greg's impression of Tommy is absolutely better than Franco partially due to his exposure to his voice as a friend and also because he grew up with a parent who is a strong native French speaker with an accent. Being from within the same area of Europe, it's easier to approximate the dialects if you master one. He captures the various tones and colors of Tommy's unique inflection better which give a much better indication of Tommy's personality.
I was thinking the same thing about Greg's own French heritage helping him do a great Tommy impression.
Honestly, Franco just came off as though he was just doing a SNL skit for two hours. He wasn't the worst casting choice out there, but he definitely wasn't the best either. Someone like Joaquin Phoenix could've probably added much more heart and depth to the role.
Excellent video. I liked the movie but the book delivered a more raw and honest story, even despite the possibility of Greg changing details as you mentioned.
By the way, I’m interested in what your thoughts are on the terrible adaptation of The Glass Castle, which may be the pinnacle of bad adaptations.
If we think about it, isn't interesting that we got to see two visions of the same story, one with greg's point of view and the other sith tommy, each one of them had different perspectives on what reaaly happen and it is up to us to decide what was real about each one of them
It's definitely a great case study for how perspective effects a story.
Yes. Excellent video. I really enjoyed "The Disaster Artist," but there was one thing I couldn't pinpoint that made the movie short of amazing, and you've hit the nail on the head!
Very fair assessment. By the way I came to the whole The Room universe through surfing Audible and finding this by chance. I'd never heard of The Room, but I got totally hooked. The book is brilliantly read by Greg Sestero in probably the performance of his career. And knowing it is his own story makes it an even better listen. The warmth and sincerity of his caring about Tommy really comes over, and there are some genuine laugh out loud moments.
It pissed me off that they cut how Tommy originally had a different actor for Mark and how Tommy shot the Mark scenes with both Greg and the other actor but only had them roll cameras for Greg.
Totally agree with the conclusion of your comparison. The book is a freakin' masterpiece! Wiseau, as there presented, is hilarious, inexplicable and even quite scary. [There was not one point in the book where I could have predicted what Wiseau was going to say or do next.] In the movie adaptation, by comparison, he is reduced to a sort of Borat.
Simply put, I read the book (loved it), saw The Disaster Artist (a one and done (a "meh")), and re=read the book again and realized why I wasn't crazy about the movie. Scenes that never happened were put in the movie while scenes that clearly defined Greg and Tommy's relationship from beginning to end were not included. The movie is shallow but entertaining but it lacks the depth that would make The Disaster Artist a great examination of two people's story. If there's anything you can take away from my comment is this: BUY THE BOOK! You'll LOVE IT!
*BUY THE BOOK! You'll LOVE IT!*
I agree with this statement.
THANK YOU for making this. I cannot agree more. Throughout the whole film the Franco brothers are playing Johnny and Mark but never really Tommy and Greg. The best most personal parts of the story were left out to focus on ‘Easter eggs’ for The Room instead.
The movie serves as an introduction To tommy and his craziness. It’s something palatable for the widest possible audience, and it needed to be because, let’s face it, this shit is super niche. Then, once people are fascinated, they can watch the room and/or read the book.
The story of their friendship as depicted in the book doesn't make for a fun hollywood story. I grew sadder as the book progressed and it seemed Greg was completely over Tommy. But the book ends there while in reality they rekindled their friendship in the last few years, the Franco's said that having them not friends in the movie isn't true to how they are today and they felt they had to change it
I think movie is good companion piece for the book. I watched movie first and then I wanted to know what was left over from the book, so I started to read that too. And I'm not a book person per se, but movie makes me color those pages (specially when I have problem imagining things based of text and have dyslexia) and wanting to read book so much more.
Then get the audio book, narrated by Greg Sestero himself. Trust me, it's an enormous amount of fun. Plus, Greg does an excellent Tommy's impression, much better than James Franco. Here's an excerpt: watch?v=K40IToeN51Y
I think it’s because Jimmy Fallon asked “how accurate do you think they captured your essence” and not “do you agree with the movie”
The scene in the Cinema that depicts The Room Suicide Scene, I agree. In real life, People react that way to it now that it's a cult film. But at the Premiere, before it was so popular, no one would've done that then.
I loved that you mentioned that even Greg's story could be subjective. It goes to show that everyone has their own truth, and adapting it into something material, like a book or a movie is simply revealing your truth to the world. Some may like it, some may not, but there's always a little something for everyone's taste 😊
The reference to The Talented Mr. Ridley provides much more insight in the book
James Franco looks the way Tommy Wiseau wishes he looked.
Such a great video, I agree with you. The last chapter of Disaster artist moved me to the extent movie could not because of the portrayal of Tommy's journey.
Thank you for this.
I watched the movie baffled. I felt like Tommy Wissue was abusive towards Greg, making him sacrifice literally everything for a film that was, well, shit. I was expecting at the end for Greg to come to his senses, to realize what kind of relationship he had with this mysterious man. But in the end, it was all played off as okay.
I haven't read the book, but now I'm very interested. I still really enjoy the film, and felt like the performances were really good. But I want to know more about what was really going on between the two main characters of this real life story. I felt like I was missing something by the end.
I will definitely be picking up this book. Maybe try and read it in my spare time before school starts.
I really hope you ended up reading/listening to it. It's one of my favorites.
Just found your channel 5 mins ago. I totally loved the analysis and the video, great work!
The movie told the story people wanted. It gave exact recreations of all the famous scenes from The Room. It’s a fun romp through the behind the scenes and since Tommy comes off as this wild character, it’s fun and lighthearted with a well-meaning protagonist in Tommy. The book was a retelling of a stressful time and it holds Tommy responsible for problems he may not have even comprehended. It doesn’t try to tell a version of the story people want to hear. It tells one truth from one perspective.
I still loved this movie but I agree it’s hard to enjoy it more after you’ve read the book
Great work, Thomas. I had a similar feeling after watching The Disaster Artist. At one level I enjoyed the movie, but there was so much more about Tommy that I wanted to know. Just subscribed to your channel. Keep on making such amazing videos, brother.
I love both the book and the movie, but they are tonally as different as night and day. I agree with your opinion, and commend you on your analysis. I still find myself quoting this movie all the time with my wife. :) What a story, Mark!
This is a great video. I liked the movie and I agree with your points. I've listened to the audio book of the Disaster Artist many times. I don't think Greg was anywhere near as boyish or eager as Dave Franco portrayed him. I was also very interested in seeing some of the darker parts in the movie that were in books such as the night Greg got out of Tommy's car but those parts just weren't in the movie.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but what you brought up were some of my fears about the adaptation of the book. What I love about Greg's account about his relationship with Tommy and The Room is how brutally honest and raw it is. There were parts where I was uncomfortable and downright fearful for Greg's predicament when he was steadily getting sucked into Tommy's life and drama.
To me, Tommy was a toxic friend who desperately wanted success but was spiteful and bitter when Greg had even a little of it for himself (i.e. when Greg got the lead part in Retro Puppet Master). When Greg even mentioned Tommy to others, even vaguely, Tommy went berserk. He hated that Greg had other people to talk to and rely on, whereas Tommy poured all of his emotional baggage onto Greg. It's especially unsettling because Tommy is about 20 years older but social cues and behaviour is completely alien to him.
(Note: It's been a while since I read the book, but these were some of the impressions of Greg's story that have stuck with me. I might be remembering or interpreting some events incorrectly, so I might do another reread in the future just to clarify.)
I read the book the other day (saw the movie before). I agree with the author of the video, but I want to add the following. The movie and the book are essentially different, but both are good in their formats. I thoroughly enjoyed both watching and reading. I love both, but each in their own way. In their difference, I even see a big plus: they are perceived differently and you can re-read and revise with pleasure.
00:23 You had me at "uhcentric"
Just gonna say, the scene where the audience is chanting, if you go to a screening of the room, people yell at the screen, maybe not all are chanting “do it, do it” but they are people who say that and there’s people who say don’t do it, so that scene was just showing how people react to the movie. But even if with that said, good video. I haven’t read the book, but I’ve been wanting to for a while and I think I will now. So thanks lol
For all the ways they smoothed over Tommy, they made Greg a complete doofus, which I don’t think the real Greg is. I think real Greg was far more beaten down by the world and weirdly that bugged me more.
The scene cheering on Johnny’s death is the best part of the film and reflects the culture around going to see the room. It’s less but also more than the book.
Also dark? Really. It’s the room.
I felt like the Disaster Artist was a great film, but I agree that it is not a faithful adaptation of the book. The dark, depressed, suicidal Tommy is barely touched on in the film. With that said, I read the book a week after the major theatrical release of the movie. Frankly, I was shocked at how Greg perceived Tommy but also floored by how dark Tommy was. Thinking back, the car accident that Tommy was in, his major relationship that failed, and Tommy's harsh life as a young adult in Eastern Europe all paint a different picture. The Room was created, as per Greg, as a means of creation and an outlet for pain rather than Tommy killing himself.
Franco's role as Tommy seemed to be the highlight of the film with scene by scene recreation. Major themes were left out. Did audiences really want to see Franco impersonate Tommy or would the film have been better had Franco stayed more true to Greg's book?
I definitely think tact was a big part of Franco's adaptation. He can't put the same things to film that Greg, someone who was there, can put to the page.
i suppose it’s strange to take on characters who are still living people and to want to go into depth as it’d force tommy wiseau to be more public about the more difficult times in his life. it’s hard to want to make a movie about a real, living person’s struggles.
it’s strange territory
Over the course of many years, Greg Sestero has come to Tucson, AZ s sort of a showcase to meet him and hear some details about the movie. During this time you heard a lot of the real stories and turmoil. The multiple cast changes, the money being spent, and or course Sestero's reluctance to be in the movie. The Disaster Artist was made for the casual movie goer who had never heard of The Room and was largely dishonest. The Brian Cranston scene was the last straw for me and it proved that this was just a vehicle for Franco to show off his supposed "talent." I doubt any true fan of The Room would know this and the ending proved to be just another Hollywoodized ending. I mean this movie strained their friendship for years and it was dashed in one little false tidbit in the movie. Stay with the book and listen to Sestero when he come to your town, and you will hear some more definitive truths
Good video, enjoyed it and well made, subscribed
They got Nathan Fielder on this project as Kyle and basically did nothing with him :(
In the book, a piece of the set falls on Kyle and he has to finish his scene with a concussion. It would have been great to see Nathan Fielder portray that.
This book would make a great material for David Fincher
That's why i think Tommy approve the movie more so than the book. The book is all sad and probably reminds him of those times while the movie is more light hearted.
I’m starting to think that while the book is obviously Greg’s interpretation of the story, I kinda feel like Franco’s film is coincidentally playing towards Tommy’s perspective because it shows him as the misunderstood hero, which might be what he thinks of himself as. I appreciate both the book and film for showing the story behind The Room in different lights.
Although I really liked the movie, your criticism is dead on correct. About Greg, I really related to him in the book because he came across as a wide eyed innocent to people, but internally he was incredibly smart and self aware. For example, in the book he was friends with Tommy because he was so unique and interesting, but he knew that he was a strange goofball. In the movie, Greg simplemindedly seems to think that Tommy is some kind of genius seemingly unaware that he was nuts.
I recently listened to the entirety of the audio book, and it was an amazing experience. The movie really doesn't do it justice, but I understand.
Nonetheless the book does a much better job revealing the details. But I am concerned with the amount of tommy's personal details the Greg reveal in the book, since tommy clearly doesn't want the public to know about them
This is great.👌
Greg is the interesting key person. Want to read that book now.
I wonder if he knew how Franco's movie would turn out and if - again, just like with "the room" - it was the right or wrong thing to do it.
I listened to the audio book. I can’t see how it’s not funny. He writes jokingly how he thinks Tommy is the zodiac killer. I’ve enjoyed them both. They are going to focus on different things. They can only fit so much into a 2 hour movie. They are going to focus on the on set antics and drama over Greg’s internal thoughts. A large portion of the book is pretty much Greg’s career autobiography. James Franco did watch all of the behind the scenes footage recorded by Tommy’s spy Marcus as well.
My order of things just recently in relation to The Disaster Artist are: 1) the novel that I finished last weekend (while watching clips of the movie for context, and it enhanced the experience greatly); 2) the movie adaptation that I watched last night (highlights of this movie for me are Franco's acting coz he has the "gist" of Tommy down per se and I didn't see Franco at all, and the reenactment of some scenes are always fun. Shoutout to Efron's Chris-R, haha); 3) videos about Best F(r)iends last night (yours and Nostalgia Critic's).
And after all that, I can safely say that the book invoked more emotions from me (especially the part where Tommy had his meltdown when he found Greg was talking about him to other people like Greg's friend, but Greg thinking that he's only told them parts of Tommy that he's fond of, e.g. giving him hope at one of the worst times of his life).
Moreover, what I was able to derive from Best F(r)iends is that movie displays more of the true nature of their relationship from the book (a.k.a. Greg's perspective) than The Disaster Artist movie, especially the confrontation scene between the characters by the end of Volume 1 that reminded me of the said meltdown from Tommy.
But basically, yes. I agree with this video wholeheartedly. I won't say the movie itself isn't competent, coz it was made super well. From what it was able to take from the book- obviously, it had its liberties. It's Franco's perspective. I can see where they were going from with this, especially if the intention is to make it digestible, Tommy-approved, and make it something worth nominating in award ceremonies. Nevertheless, I was still disappointed at the end of it (subjectively speaking).
Well, this comment got pretty long, and is for both this video and your Best F(r)iends one. I was so optimistic of what I was gonna see from the movie, but I should've expected a more lighthearted take on the novel. I didn't know where else to put this... critique and I need catharsis for this, haha. Oh well. Great video, by the way!
I missed the tearjerking Tommy childhood part.
Wow... now I know why I had a problem with the movie's end back then!
It’s interesting because the movie received such critical acclaim and winnings, and it’s sweet to see Tommy succeed in this way
Yeah, I agree mostly with what you say. I was stoked to watch this movie when I first saw the trailer. And I read the book in between the time until it came out. I watched the movie twice (because I forgot to stay for the Tommy post credits scene the first time), and it was almost like 2 things.
It seems that Franco wanted to focus ENTIRELY on the premise of "underdog wants to make movie, and he does but it's terrible", whereas the book doesn't do that. The book makes the actual making of the movie, and Tommy's involvement, a tip of the iceberg for his outlandish character, and everything that Cestero went through in the time he knew Tommy(pre making The Room, and whilst). But I knew right off the bat, especially when I watched the first trailer, that the movie was going to be Tommy-centric, and focused entirely on making the movie. So, I couldn't help but see the movie as its own thing as opposed to the trope of "the book is better". Because I loved the movie. But I also loved the book - I just didn't love them for the same reasons - That's where the disconnect is.
Great analysis. I always found mind-boggling that some of the people who presumably read the book also praised the movie. I think the movie is an inaccurate adaptation at its core; Greg Sestero's take on the described events, his reactions to them and motivation are some of the most interesting and enjoyable elements of the book. Like you said, he was a self-aware, skeptical dude who did things out of desperation-driven necessity, and Franco turned him into a drooling simpleton who didn't know any better. Loved Sestero's book. Hated Franco's movie.
Love how people some how take Greg's book as truth just because Wiseu does have his flaws, but Greg wrote a book to cash in as well as to make himself not look as bad as wiseu while also tryin to make Tommy look even worse.
The movie is more positive in portrayal of Tommy. That's why he prefers the adaptation. + Book goes into Tommy's past which he's very protective of. Also, originally the movie was supposed to end with Tommy and Greg parting ways but since nowadays they're good friends they've decided to reflect that.
There was an interview that said Tommy didn't even read anything close to the whole book, so I do think that his quirk had at least some part to do with it
Tomie needs to write his version of the events. "Re: The Disaster Artist"
I found the fact that the Tommy character was significantly taller than the Greg character distracting, as it's the inverse of their real life counterparts. How hard would it have been to have Dave stand on a riser and use forced perspective for full body scenes?
Greg's Impression of Tommy's voice is definitely better. James Franco's impression is good, but his voice is naturally deeper so it's a little off from what Tommy actually sounds like.
I really see the disaster artist movie as being the book, which is greg sesteros story, as retold by Tommy himself- it gives Tommy a clear and recognizable pathos that’s missing completely in the book; everything about how Tommy operates is a mystery, and the real drama of the book is Greg understanding how Tommy’s planet operates, and how it’ll reliably clash with the real world. The movie seems to clearly define how Tommy sees the world, and so the drama in the film is the irony that the audience already knows what Greg will ostensibly find out: people are very strange these days.
To me, this movie could have been so much more in terms of examining a complex yet close relationship yet all I see is the glorification of one man and the silencing of another. This movie seems like it is about the Room and Tommy and Greg's relationship, when it is only about Tommy. Everyone who worked on this etched out a path for one man and held no elaboration for the other. He just existed to be part of the Room is what this film said to me.
If there’s one thing from the book I would’ve loved to have seen James Franco recreate it’s the weird ass street fashions commercial
I still don't understand why Sestero didn't play himself. Was he not asked or did he turn it down?
Ensgnblack After reading the book, James Franco saw the making of The Room as Tommy Wiseau wanting to do a project with his best friend Greg Sestero. He likely wanted to honor this by making his adaptation of “The Disaster Artist” as a project he could do with his brother.
To be honest, I like the movie for what it is: a story that tells us you can get there if you work hard enough, even if you suck. It's just a fun story to begin with, and there are a lot of comedic moments that kept me entertained throughout the film. That said, I will definitely read the book soon and see what the real story was (probably) like.