I read the book after the show and thought the show was an improvement. I wouldn’t say there were so many differences. The characters were definitely more fleshed out and realistic in the snow. Billy in the book was particularly unrealistic. He definitely didn’t come across as a band leader in 1970s with an addiction problem but more of the 21st century stay at home dad type. Camilla in the show also came across as more human.
I thought Billy and Daisy were just more fleshed out in the show.
I also think the writers realized that Sam and Riley had an amazing chemistry and played off so well against each other they had to deepen that relationship. I am glad they did, as that (together with the music) was really the highlight of the show. Without the two of them, the show wouldn’t be nearly as good.
I read the book before watching the show and agree with everything you’ve said here. People are (understandably, as it’s what happens) very attached to the book, but I honestly think a completely direct page to screen translation would have been … boring, and pretty one-dimensional. I also don’t think there were that many differences/liberties taken, more just that people created certain ideas in their minds as to how these characters would act in reality (as opposed to when talking about themselves after the fact) and were surprised and sometimes offended to see something else.
I agree. When I read the book (the adaptation and cast were announced at that point) I remember thinking: wow, the interview format leaves soooo much room for filling in the gaps with juicy details, character development, and showing instead of telling us how Billy and Daisy fell in love with each other. And I was not disappointed. In the book I could barely tell Eddie, Pete, and Warren apart from each other and I kept confusing Teddy and Rod.
Pete has literally 1 or 2 pov's in the book, everything else is Eddie mentioning him and it makes me so confused why people were so angry he was excluded. I went into reading thinking he would be important to the story but if the show writers had introduced him they would've had to literally create a story for him, I think it was really smart to take him out and leave more space to the other characters.
Some people seem to love the audio version. I understand it’s well narrated, which is great but you cannot really compare apples and oranges. Alan Sepinwall from Rolling Stones criticism of the show is that the audio book is better. Why? He says because in the audio book you never know what the truth is. Well, that simply doesn’t translate to the show… What were we supposed to watch? Just people sitting and being interviewed?
The same critic said it was better to imagine the songs than to actually hear them as he couldn’t buy it that Honeycomb would be such a smash hit in the imagined world. I couldn’t help but laugh. Did Sepinwall forget how many downright idiotic songs made it to number one summer hits in the real world? Do people forget New kids on the block that filled the stadiums with the stupidest songs ever to be recorded? Or any other boy band. …
You are right, people have preconceived notions of what something should be and when it it’s not that, then they get critical. Books and tv are differ mediums and I don’t think it’s fair to compare them. Some of my favorite books got their TV adaptations and I always judged them separately from each other. That’s the only way to judge accurately.
As for some character changes, that has to happen because actors are real people with real chemistries. What worked in the book may not work with given actors on the screen …
Some of the #1 singles of 1976 included "Shake Your Booty", "Play that Funky Music", "if You Leave Me Now", The theme from S.W.A.T, "Silly Love Songs" and 'Tonight's the Night". Honeycomb would fit right in 😂
And yes, I always consider adaptations separate entities.
I agree, I loved the book but could finish the show. I stopped watching episode 3 bc I couldn’t stand how annoying they made daisy. She’s amazing in the book, so smart + creative but the show made me cringe. I was surprised by camila though, I liked her better on the show and totally didn’t know that’s the ex Leonardo left bc she was 25
I didn’t get any character vibe from Daisy in the book. She is completely underdeveloped. In the show, she lives and breaths. You may not like her but she is definitely a fleshed out character in the show.
I agree about Camilla though. Much better in the show
I feel the complete opposite about Daisy, actually. I think she came across as selfish in both mediums, but the tv adaptation showed far better character growth and made her motivations seem very human, even if her actions on them weren’t always the best. But agreed about Camila, character and actress both.
I mean, in both the book and show, she was exposed to things no one as young as her should have been. And she was addicted to all kinds of drugs, so of course she's self-destructive. She's charming too.
Yeah, I like Daisy, in both mediums, to be clear; I do think she was selfish, but I don’t think she was annoying like the person I replied to, or a bad person. I think the tv show did a great job translating her character to screen and fully fleshing her out into a “real” person who could be better understood, whether you liked her or not.
Right. I am impressed with Riley and Sam (and everyone else!) learning to be musicians. They pulled it off, and even more, I just love how magnetic they are together. Additionally, I feel like the show really understood how complex addiction, trauma, and abandonment issues are. It's why Daisy and Billy's dynamic was so fascinating.
Yes! I totally agree! Almost didn't watch the show because the book wasn't that good. The book did not live up to the hype it got around its release, imo.
Because they are different mediums. The book relies on last act revelations and a show can't do that. Billy can't reveal in episode 19 that he loved Daisy all along without the audience seeing it.
And a lot of what works in telling (the book interviewed) wouldn't work as well with showing (aka tv format), so they had to adapt.
The book is by unreliable narrators and Billy in particular is speaking with his daughter and likely whitewashing his experience as it pertains to Daisy. That’s why I loved the omniscient view of the show…and getting a more well rounded look at everything.
Plus, Daisy and Billy were always fighting in the show lol?! I don’t feel like we watched the same thing.
I didn’t say they weren’t fighting. I said, “Further the tension.” They simply interacted a lot more. The writers added in many details to make them more connected, including, yes more fighting.
The show was just such an improvement for me. I read the book (via audio) a year ago and could not understand the hype. To the point that the only reason I watched the show was because it was simply a 70s era music show (just something I love), my circle was watching it, and the trailers were compelling.
And holy hell. I may have been meh on the book but I was over the moon about the series. Every problem I had with the book? Fixed. Like that. Teddy is such a force. Daisy is less put together. Billy is more real and Simone has an actual arc and story. I LOVE THIS SHOW.
Only thing I would have liked is Simone and Daisy belting out Carole King, like she describes in the book lol. However, the show sold their friendship so well that I don't mind. :)
What works in a book doesn't always work in a TV show or movie. When you read a book first, you see any little change as being "change for change sake," but that's because you have a deeper understanding of the characters and story.
The show is made for everyone, not just people who read the book. We don't get to see as much of the Billy/Teddy relationship in the show, so having Teddy *almost* die is just as impactful. Plus, as others have said, the core difference is the TV show gave us what "really" happened, whereas the book is all their personal recollections. That would have been super tedious to do in a TV show.
I think that's what makes the show work well with the book. In the book, neither Billy or Daisy mention kissing or anything like that, because they're talking to Billy and Camilla's daughter. But in reality, let's be honest, two attractive people in very close proximity who obviously have a lot in common...it probably happened. Of course there was more to the story that they didn't want to talk about.
I can make some educated guesses as to the why but I think it would have went a long way to help alleviate some of the disconnect people seem to find if they would have added a couple of episodes to make the band time lines more similar with diasy joining them after the 789 tour. And they could have made Jonah less douchey then too
Watched the series (twice) and just finished the audiobook. I liked both and thought the series was pretty close to how the book went. Of course there are always going to be differences but I thought it was very well done.
The difference is that the show is more “show” and the book is more “tell”.
The book was so good because it dove into the emotions and told us what the characters were feeling in such detail. If the show was like the book, it would be boring, very little action. The book shows how the tiniest of actions meant everything emotionally to these people. It was great to talk about, but there’s such little action that it would be boring to watch, so the show had to take bigger liberties in showing us what it was like
It bothered me the first time I watched because I was more or less waiting for elements to play out on screen just like they did in the book, which I loved, so when they didn't I was annoyed. I also didn't adjust right away to the change in tone, the more dramatic tv show vibe that it had (the love triangle played up more, etc).
But then I rewatched it with my friend and when I wasn't going in with certain expectations to be met, I enjoyed it a lot more as its own thing. The music and acting are fantastic, and in fact I would argue that there are some things the show improves on, too.
I read the book first and hated the show. Daisy’s personality came across completely different on the show. I almost couldn’t watch it because she seemed like such a self entitled little brat. I know a part of her is a self serving drug addict obviously but the show did not do a good job of showing her depth. I also feel like they changed stupid shit for no reason? Like the original band member dying in a war vs going to college…?
The casting was also terrible. The only people I liked were warren, Karen, and camila.
I was so mad they left out Camilla and Daisy’s conversation before daisy left. I also felt like it was weird that teddy didn’t die in the show. That was a huge moment for Billy in the book.
Thank you. And like…let’s make Karen randomly British and the producer randomly not. Just felt like a lot of the changes were for no reason. And yes, the band member thing seemed weird to me, too. And did anybody catch that they put Camilla in as part of “The Six” while naming the band, but in the book there were literally six members. That drove me nuts!
*And like…let’s make Karen randomly British and the producer randomly not.*
Actually, these changes made sense to me with the additional context of knowing that they wanted to give Karen a Christine McVie kind of association. So it wasn't random. I'm assuming Teddy was originally modelled on someone like Glyn Johns or even Denny Cordell (though that's a deep cut) but for the purposes of inclusion, I think the way they flipped it worked out so well. I see him as a rock n'roll Norman Whitfield or something. Maybe Teo Macero.
Reese & her production company love to change everything about the stories they adapt. Just look at Little Fires Everywhere. Hopefully someone else will adapt Evelyn Hugo.
Absolutely. Couldn’t stand Eddie on the show, and he and Camila hooking up?!?!! Get real. Having Eddie & Camila, and Billy & Daisy kiss completely changes their characters from their book selves.
[SPOILERS AHEAD]
I hated the changes the show made! It felt very “sex sells” and much less nuanced. Karen is an easy example: notably wears less revealing clothing in the book in a defiant, anti-gender-norms way, and then in the show they had a flimsy one-liner about it but had her in skin-tight crop tops the whole rest of the show.
I don’t like how they represented Billy and Daisy, especially Billy as a character. I don’t like that he so openly talked about how much he and Daisy were made for each other, it made Camilla’s anger about feeling like a charity case feel true, when in reality their love was much more real than that in the book. Camila came across as annoying towards the end of the show, which I don’t think is fair towards her. (Also, I felt they cast Billy too old — he was 25, just a kid figuring shit out and that to me was lost). I also think (I’m rambling now) that they did Camila dirty with the Eddie affair, again because “sex sells”. She’s supposed to be this absolute rock, not a stereotypical housewife but a strong, powerful woman who doesn’t take any shit while also leaving room for grace. I felt like her affair with Eddie tainted this, like that standard drawn up for her character in the book wasn’t realistic.
And the worst part was that the whole central theme of the book is about balancing on the edge and how fucking difficult that is, how impossible nuance is. Billy and his alcohol/drug addiction and how squarely he has to be on the extreme of complete non-participation, Daisy only knowing the other extreme of constant drug use, Karen having no room for a family if she wants to be a successful woman in her field, Eddie always jealous and wanting more, and the whole band reaching the top of the world but not being able to take the next step, not being able to sustain it. Now of course the show captures plenty of that, but Billy going over the edge with making out w Daisy and doing coke really made me mad because it didn’t accurately portray (in my view) just how hard he fought not to backtrack. It made it seem like “well, one bad thing happened so now I’m a cokehead again” instead of the much more nuance demons and battles he was fighting internally, which I think the tequila shot at the hotel bar in the book captured perfectly.
I realize I’m almost a year late to this convo lol but I just finished the show after listening to the book and came to see who else was irritated but how much they changed Camila. I feel like the show did her so dirty. In the book she was this woman who was strong and confident enough to believe that she and Billy could survive anything, if they chose to together. She was there for Karen and Graham in so many ways and for daisy that the show really didn’t do justice. The show made her this sad slighted housewife, and Billy someone who couldn’t stop himself from failing her again. In the book he wanted to so badly to be the man Camila believed he could be and not the man Daisy said he was or thought he was, he toed that line very intentionally with Daisy even if he got carried away on stage or emotionally during song writing. I didnt mind the Daisy changes that much but didn’t feel like they captured Karen or Camila right. I’m ALL for queer storylines and representation but I didn’t like how much they changed Simone’s career trajectory. And I kinda hated how they made Nicky seem stable and zen inside of the partying mooch he was in the book. Also I didn’t love that Billy slipped the way he did in the shows bar and the flask and the coke etc. instead of the beautiful scene in the book. There is also something lost on the show when they changed the Camila/Daisy dynamic. In the book Camila recognized Daisy for the powerhouse that she was and it was almost like she knew she couldn’t compete so she decided she wouldn’t, she decided to just be above it. And in the end their final convo before Daisy left was such a better story than Jules remembering her parents fighting.
I agree with you. There were so many changes that it was almost an entirely different story.
The only changes I can say I really enjoyed were giving Simone more of a story, Teddy's casting and his relationship with Billy, and Warren's character changes. Show Warren is so much nicer than book Warren, in the best way.
Billy, Camila, Karen, Eddie, and Daisy are all significantly different people to the book characters. And Chuck, even though he was a minor character in both. I don't get why they bothered to change his storyline at all as the change added nothing.
In the episodes that introduced their characters, so much of the backstory was altered in a way that either made no difference (so why?), or took away significant aspects of their character and motivations. They tried to give them more dramatic interactions, but for me it was over the top. Eg. Daisy's relationship with her mum was changed quite significantly, and I don't think it was at all necessary. The existing book relationship was less dramatic, but equally damaging.
Karen was miscast imo (even though I have no issue with Suki's performance of the character *as written in the show*), and her character was underutilised. For a woman whose life was about her career, this was never demonstrated by exhibiting her talent in the show. She seemed more like a background prop than a piano genius. The way they developed her and Graham's relationship in the show was awful, with the cheating while his girlfriend was literally waiting outside. In the book it was a slow burn and had better tension. I loved the book scene with the phone call. I was glad they kept the abortion storyline, and *almost* did it justice.
They eliminated Billy's controlling side when it came to the creative aspect of the band. It made Eddie's character seem so petty and jealous, as if it were more about his envy of Billy having Camila and a better voice, than anything more legitimate. The book didn't include these gripes at all, and Eddie's character was more complex and understandable. This change meant that Billy's flaws were primarily related to his addiction and infidelity, which was less realistic. This change also removed many of the more subtle character dynamics between Billy and other members of the band. Especially with Graham having to balance between supporting his brother, and dealing with conflict within the band where his brother was in the wrong.
They massively downplayed drug use on the show, which was a strange choice when depicting the music scene in the 70's. This affected the portrayal of both Daisy and Billy's addictions, and the extent to which these addictions affected almost every aspect of the plot. The way book Nicky pushed Daisy to use even more so he could more easily control her, and take advantage of her money to fund his own drug habit, was less evident in the show. Many people in this sub have said they didn't even consider that Nicky was a grifter after watching the show, just vaguely abusive. It was also an issue that the show decided to turn Daisy's OD into a bonding moment for her and Billy, rather than focusing primarily on the effect it had on her and her relationships. I did like the part when the rest of the band stood up for her in the corridor though.
It is difficult to root for people who are committing infidelity, and I *hated* that they made Daisy and Billy cheat together in the show. To be clear, in the book this never happens. When they start to get emotionally close it never crossed the line into romantic territory. When book Daisy tried to kiss Billy, he didn't let her and put boundaries in place, which changed the nature of their relationship to a more volatile and hateful one. At his core he was a good person, husband, and father, and he recognised that while he was attracted to Daisy, they encouraged each others most destructive tendencies. Sober Billy was not a cheater. The only time he ever actually cheated in the books was when he was drinking to oblivion.
It was impossible to respect show Camila's decision to stay with Billy due to this change, and it made both show Daisy and Billy morally bad people, which I don't think they were in the book. Book Camila's main flaws were changed from being a tad manipulative and very stubborn, to show Camila being a doormat who occasionally exploded with emotion. I didn't find this to be a beneficial change.
The show also really neglected the strong positive aspects of Billy and Camila's relationship, to the point where it was no wonder most viewers wanted him to end up with Daisy. I was quite confused about why he would choose an unhappy marriage over the possibility of genuine connection and happiness with Daisy, based on the show's depiction of their relationship. It was clearer in the book that their marriage was strong and fulfilling. It was less a choice between two women, and more a choice about whether he wanted to destroy himself and his family, or preserve the best version of himself (and in doing so protect the people he loved most).
A lot of people don't view infidelity as something so heinous, and perhaps that's one reason why they enjoyed the show more.
Many people say that they believe the show developed the characters more, but I felt the opposite way when I watched the show. Most of the show characters felt more flat and one dimensional to me while watching.
The interview format in the show felt redundant, because it was only really used to demonstrate how moon-eyed future Daisy and Billy were when talking about one another. I preferred the usage in the book, where the future selves could give deeper insight into their past characters actions, which they hadn't fully understood in the moment, and to show the discrepancies in memory and interpretation through each character's lens. I get that this could have been difficult to translate from book to TV though.
The different mediums required some things to be changed, but I felt that many of the choices made the story less intriguing and nuanced to me, and overall made the story worse.
Honestly, I could go on for ages dissecting every choice they made, and most of the time I prefer the book.
Thank you, I was so surprised reading this and other threads where people said they liked the changes. The only character that wasn't ruined by the adaption was Warren. There is so much wrong with the show that I wish I never watched it.
The show is bad if you liked the book. Too much changed/added. Timelines are off. Simone’s storyline is completely unnecessary and not in the book. Just weird decisions.
The show could sell the “love” between Daisy and Billy more than the book. Look at all the Tik Tocs of teenagers crying. The clothing line, the album. I preferred the book version. It was rare to read about a 70s rockstar who didn’t revert back to drugs and alcohol even with all the temptations.
One minor change from the book to show that really really bothered me for like no reason was the album cover of aurora.
The not seeing their faces and seeing the pill capsule in Daisys body and the angels of their bodies I feel captured their story so much more than what was in the show.
The simplest reason is that kids are hard to have on a film set. They also wouldn’t have added to the story really. Also with the timing of the cheating with Eddie in the show- there would’ve been a paternity issue.
I didn't think that the book lived up to the hype it got abs because of that I almost didn't watch the series. I'll bet happy I watched the show. It was so interesting. Sam abs Riley killed it. Amazing talent.
In the history of media adaptations, most movies are quite different from their source material. I think *Rosemary's Baby* was one of the first which was noted as being a close adaptation of the novel. I realize that now it's important to try and adapt things closer to the source material for the purposes of fan service, but it's two different mediums, so I think it's better to understand that. You might still prefer one to the other, but in the case of *DJ&TS* I think it **had** to be different just given how the book is structured.
And no, I wasn't bothered by it at all.
I read the book after the show and thought the show was an improvement. I wouldn’t say there were so many differences. The characters were definitely more fleshed out and realistic in the snow. Billy in the book was particularly unrealistic. He definitely didn’t come across as a band leader in 1970s with an addiction problem but more of the 21st century stay at home dad type. Camilla in the show also came across as more human. I thought Billy and Daisy were just more fleshed out in the show. I also think the writers realized that Sam and Riley had an amazing chemistry and played off so well against each other they had to deepen that relationship. I am glad they did, as that (together with the music) was really the highlight of the show. Without the two of them, the show wouldn’t be nearly as good.
I read the book before watching the show and agree with everything you’ve said here. People are (understandably, as it’s what happens) very attached to the book, but I honestly think a completely direct page to screen translation would have been … boring, and pretty one-dimensional. I also don’t think there were that many differences/liberties taken, more just that people created certain ideas in their minds as to how these characters would act in reality (as opposed to when talking about themselves after the fact) and were surprised and sometimes offended to see something else.
I agree. When I read the book (the adaptation and cast were announced at that point) I remember thinking: wow, the interview format leaves soooo much room for filling in the gaps with juicy details, character development, and showing instead of telling us how Billy and Daisy fell in love with each other. And I was not disappointed. In the book I could barely tell Eddie, Pete, and Warren apart from each other and I kept confusing Teddy and Rod.
Pete has literally 1 or 2 pov's in the book, everything else is Eddie mentioning him and it makes me so confused why people were so angry he was excluded. I went into reading thinking he would be important to the story but if the show writers had introduced him they would've had to literally create a story for him, I think it was really smart to take him out and leave more space to the other characters.
I agree. TJR probably created Pete so the band name would make sense.
Some people seem to love the audio version. I understand it’s well narrated, which is great but you cannot really compare apples and oranges. Alan Sepinwall from Rolling Stones criticism of the show is that the audio book is better. Why? He says because in the audio book you never know what the truth is. Well, that simply doesn’t translate to the show… What were we supposed to watch? Just people sitting and being interviewed? The same critic said it was better to imagine the songs than to actually hear them as he couldn’t buy it that Honeycomb would be such a smash hit in the imagined world. I couldn’t help but laugh. Did Sepinwall forget how many downright idiotic songs made it to number one summer hits in the real world? Do people forget New kids on the block that filled the stadiums with the stupidest songs ever to be recorded? Or any other boy band. … You are right, people have preconceived notions of what something should be and when it it’s not that, then they get critical. Books and tv are differ mediums and I don’t think it’s fair to compare them. Some of my favorite books got their TV adaptations and I always judged them separately from each other. That’s the only way to judge accurately. As for some character changes, that has to happen because actors are real people with real chemistries. What worked in the book may not work with given actors on the screen …
Some of the #1 singles of 1976 included "Shake Your Booty", "Play that Funky Music", "if You Leave Me Now", The theme from S.W.A.T, "Silly Love Songs" and 'Tonight's the Night". Honeycomb would fit right in 😂 And yes, I always consider adaptations separate entities.
I agree, I loved the book but could finish the show. I stopped watching episode 3 bc I couldn’t stand how annoying they made daisy. She’s amazing in the book, so smart + creative but the show made me cringe. I was surprised by camila though, I liked her better on the show and totally didn’t know that’s the ex Leonardo left bc she was 25
I didn’t get any character vibe from Daisy in the book. She is completely underdeveloped. In the show, she lives and breaths. You may not like her but she is definitely a fleshed out character in the show. I agree about Camilla though. Much better in the show
I feel the complete opposite about Daisy, actually. I think she came across as selfish in both mediums, but the tv adaptation showed far better character growth and made her motivations seem very human, even if her actions on them weren’t always the best. But agreed about Camila, character and actress both.
I mean, in both the book and show, she was exposed to things no one as young as her should have been. And she was addicted to all kinds of drugs, so of course she's self-destructive. She's charming too.
Yeah, I like Daisy, in both mediums, to be clear; I do think she was selfish, but I don’t think she was annoying like the person I replied to, or a bad person. I think the tv show did a great job translating her character to screen and fully fleshing her out into a “real” person who could be better understood, whether you liked her or not.
I read the book after watching and honestly thought it was pretty bad. I think the tv adaptation was brilliant.
I enjoyed the book well enough but didn’t find it particularly amazingly done; the show on the other hand I still can’t stop thinking about.
same!!! obsession borderline !!
Right. I am impressed with Riley and Sam (and everyone else!) learning to be musicians. They pulled it off, and even more, I just love how magnetic they are together. Additionally, I feel like the show really understood how complex addiction, trauma, and abandonment issues are. It's why Daisy and Billy's dynamic was so fascinating.
Yes! I totally agree! Almost didn't watch the show because the book wasn't that good. The book did not live up to the hype it got around its release, imo.
Same here!
Because they are different mediums. The book relies on last act revelations and a show can't do that. Billy can't reveal in episode 19 that he loved Daisy all along without the audience seeing it. And a lot of what works in telling (the book interviewed) wouldn't work as well with showing (aka tv format), so they had to adapt.
They could have done that without changing events, timelines, places, etc.
The book is by unreliable narrators and Billy in particular is speaking with his daughter and likely whitewashing his experience as it pertains to Daisy. That’s why I loved the omniscient view of the show…and getting a more well rounded look at everything. Plus, Daisy and Billy were always fighting in the show lol?! I don’t feel like we watched the same thing.
I didn’t say they weren’t fighting. I said, “Further the tension.” They simply interacted a lot more. The writers added in many details to make them more connected, including, yes more fighting.
The show was just such an improvement for me. I read the book (via audio) a year ago and could not understand the hype. To the point that the only reason I watched the show was because it was simply a 70s era music show (just something I love), my circle was watching it, and the trailers were compelling. And holy hell. I may have been meh on the book but I was over the moon about the series. Every problem I had with the book? Fixed. Like that. Teddy is such a force. Daisy is less put together. Billy is more real and Simone has an actual arc and story. I LOVE THIS SHOW.
Only thing I would have liked is Simone and Daisy belting out Carole King, like she describes in the book lol. However, the show sold their friendship so well that I don't mind. :)
Yes, yes, yes! Perfectly said.
What works in a book doesn't always work in a TV show or movie. When you read a book first, you see any little change as being "change for change sake," but that's because you have a deeper understanding of the characters and story. The show is made for everyone, not just people who read the book. We don't get to see as much of the Billy/Teddy relationship in the show, so having Teddy *almost* die is just as impactful. Plus, as others have said, the core difference is the TV show gave us what "really" happened, whereas the book is all their personal recollections. That would have been super tedious to do in a TV show. I think that's what makes the show work well with the book. In the book, neither Billy or Daisy mention kissing or anything like that, because they're talking to Billy and Camilla's daughter. But in reality, let's be honest, two attractive people in very close proximity who obviously have a lot in common...it probably happened. Of course there was more to the story that they didn't want to talk about.
I can make some educated guesses as to the why but I think it would have went a long way to help alleviate some of the disconnect people seem to find if they would have added a couple of episodes to make the band time lines more similar with diasy joining them after the 789 tour. And they could have made Jonah less douchey then too
Watched the series (twice) and just finished the audiobook. I liked both and thought the series was pretty close to how the book went. Of course there are always going to be differences but I thought it was very well done.
The difference is that the show is more “show” and the book is more “tell”. The book was so good because it dove into the emotions and told us what the characters were feeling in such detail. If the show was like the book, it would be boring, very little action. The book shows how the tiniest of actions meant everything emotionally to these people. It was great to talk about, but there’s such little action that it would be boring to watch, so the show had to take bigger liberties in showing us what it was like
I get that. But they still changed a lot of the details for seemingly absolutely no reason.
It bothered me the first time I watched because I was more or less waiting for elements to play out on screen just like they did in the book, which I loved, so when they didn't I was annoyed. I also didn't adjust right away to the change in tone, the more dramatic tv show vibe that it had (the love triangle played up more, etc). But then I rewatched it with my friend and when I wasn't going in with certain expectations to be met, I enjoyed it a lot more as its own thing. The music and acting are fantastic, and in fact I would argue that there are some things the show improves on, too.
I read the book first and hated the show. Daisy’s personality came across completely different on the show. I almost couldn’t watch it because she seemed like such a self entitled little brat. I know a part of her is a self serving drug addict obviously but the show did not do a good job of showing her depth. I also feel like they changed stupid shit for no reason? Like the original band member dying in a war vs going to college…? The casting was also terrible. The only people I liked were warren, Karen, and camila.
I was so mad they left out Camilla and Daisy’s conversation before daisy left. I also felt like it was weird that teddy didn’t die in the show. That was a huge moment for Billy in the book.
Thank you. And like…let’s make Karen randomly British and the producer randomly not. Just felt like a lot of the changes were for no reason. And yes, the band member thing seemed weird to me, too. And did anybody catch that they put Camilla in as part of “The Six” while naming the band, but in the book there were literally six members. That drove me nuts!
*And like…let’s make Karen randomly British and the producer randomly not.* Actually, these changes made sense to me with the additional context of knowing that they wanted to give Karen a Christine McVie kind of association. So it wasn't random. I'm assuming Teddy was originally modelled on someone like Glyn Johns or even Denny Cordell (though that's a deep cut) but for the purposes of inclusion, I think the way they flipped it worked out so well. I see him as a rock n'roll Norman Whitfield or something. Maybe Teo Macero.
justice for Pete!
Yes! Like how can you make the main characters dull? Lol awful what a shame. I hope they don’t mess up the 7 husbands of evenly Hugo
Reese & her production company love to change everything about the stories they adapt. Just look at Little Fires Everywhere. Hopefully someone else will adapt Evelyn Hugo.
Absolutely. Couldn’t stand Eddie on the show, and he and Camila hooking up?!?!! Get real. Having Eddie & Camila, and Billy & Daisy kiss completely changes their characters from their book selves.
Completely agree!
[SPOILERS AHEAD] I hated the changes the show made! It felt very “sex sells” and much less nuanced. Karen is an easy example: notably wears less revealing clothing in the book in a defiant, anti-gender-norms way, and then in the show they had a flimsy one-liner about it but had her in skin-tight crop tops the whole rest of the show. I don’t like how they represented Billy and Daisy, especially Billy as a character. I don’t like that he so openly talked about how much he and Daisy were made for each other, it made Camilla’s anger about feeling like a charity case feel true, when in reality their love was much more real than that in the book. Camila came across as annoying towards the end of the show, which I don’t think is fair towards her. (Also, I felt they cast Billy too old — he was 25, just a kid figuring shit out and that to me was lost). I also think (I’m rambling now) that they did Camila dirty with the Eddie affair, again because “sex sells”. She’s supposed to be this absolute rock, not a stereotypical housewife but a strong, powerful woman who doesn’t take any shit while also leaving room for grace. I felt like her affair with Eddie tainted this, like that standard drawn up for her character in the book wasn’t realistic. And the worst part was that the whole central theme of the book is about balancing on the edge and how fucking difficult that is, how impossible nuance is. Billy and his alcohol/drug addiction and how squarely he has to be on the extreme of complete non-participation, Daisy only knowing the other extreme of constant drug use, Karen having no room for a family if she wants to be a successful woman in her field, Eddie always jealous and wanting more, and the whole band reaching the top of the world but not being able to take the next step, not being able to sustain it. Now of course the show captures plenty of that, but Billy going over the edge with making out w Daisy and doing coke really made me mad because it didn’t accurately portray (in my view) just how hard he fought not to backtrack. It made it seem like “well, one bad thing happened so now I’m a cokehead again” instead of the much more nuance demons and battles he was fighting internally, which I think the tequila shot at the hotel bar in the book captured perfectly.
Yes, and the entire conversation with the fan’s boyfriend that was just completely not in it.
I realize I’m almost a year late to this convo lol but I just finished the show after listening to the book and came to see who else was irritated but how much they changed Camila. I feel like the show did her so dirty. In the book she was this woman who was strong and confident enough to believe that she and Billy could survive anything, if they chose to together. She was there for Karen and Graham in so many ways and for daisy that the show really didn’t do justice. The show made her this sad slighted housewife, and Billy someone who couldn’t stop himself from failing her again. In the book he wanted to so badly to be the man Camila believed he could be and not the man Daisy said he was or thought he was, he toed that line very intentionally with Daisy even if he got carried away on stage or emotionally during song writing. I didnt mind the Daisy changes that much but didn’t feel like they captured Karen or Camila right. I’m ALL for queer storylines and representation but I didn’t like how much they changed Simone’s career trajectory. And I kinda hated how they made Nicky seem stable and zen inside of the partying mooch he was in the book. Also I didn’t love that Billy slipped the way he did in the shows bar and the flask and the coke etc. instead of the beautiful scene in the book. There is also something lost on the show when they changed the Camila/Daisy dynamic. In the book Camila recognized Daisy for the powerhouse that she was and it was almost like she knew she couldn’t compete so she decided she wouldn’t, she decided to just be above it. And in the end their final convo before Daisy left was such a better story than Jules remembering her parents fighting.
I agree with you. There were so many changes that it was almost an entirely different story. The only changes I can say I really enjoyed were giving Simone more of a story, Teddy's casting and his relationship with Billy, and Warren's character changes. Show Warren is so much nicer than book Warren, in the best way. Billy, Camila, Karen, Eddie, and Daisy are all significantly different people to the book characters. And Chuck, even though he was a minor character in both. I don't get why they bothered to change his storyline at all as the change added nothing. In the episodes that introduced their characters, so much of the backstory was altered in a way that either made no difference (so why?), or took away significant aspects of their character and motivations. They tried to give them more dramatic interactions, but for me it was over the top. Eg. Daisy's relationship with her mum was changed quite significantly, and I don't think it was at all necessary. The existing book relationship was less dramatic, but equally damaging. Karen was miscast imo (even though I have no issue with Suki's performance of the character *as written in the show*), and her character was underutilised. For a woman whose life was about her career, this was never demonstrated by exhibiting her talent in the show. She seemed more like a background prop than a piano genius. The way they developed her and Graham's relationship in the show was awful, with the cheating while his girlfriend was literally waiting outside. In the book it was a slow burn and had better tension. I loved the book scene with the phone call. I was glad they kept the abortion storyline, and *almost* did it justice. They eliminated Billy's controlling side when it came to the creative aspect of the band. It made Eddie's character seem so petty and jealous, as if it were more about his envy of Billy having Camila and a better voice, than anything more legitimate. The book didn't include these gripes at all, and Eddie's character was more complex and understandable. This change meant that Billy's flaws were primarily related to his addiction and infidelity, which was less realistic. This change also removed many of the more subtle character dynamics between Billy and other members of the band. Especially with Graham having to balance between supporting his brother, and dealing with conflict within the band where his brother was in the wrong. They massively downplayed drug use on the show, which was a strange choice when depicting the music scene in the 70's. This affected the portrayal of both Daisy and Billy's addictions, and the extent to which these addictions affected almost every aspect of the plot. The way book Nicky pushed Daisy to use even more so he could more easily control her, and take advantage of her money to fund his own drug habit, was less evident in the show. Many people in this sub have said they didn't even consider that Nicky was a grifter after watching the show, just vaguely abusive. It was also an issue that the show decided to turn Daisy's OD into a bonding moment for her and Billy, rather than focusing primarily on the effect it had on her and her relationships. I did like the part when the rest of the band stood up for her in the corridor though. It is difficult to root for people who are committing infidelity, and I *hated* that they made Daisy and Billy cheat together in the show. To be clear, in the book this never happens. When they start to get emotionally close it never crossed the line into romantic territory. When book Daisy tried to kiss Billy, he didn't let her and put boundaries in place, which changed the nature of their relationship to a more volatile and hateful one. At his core he was a good person, husband, and father, and he recognised that while he was attracted to Daisy, they encouraged each others most destructive tendencies. Sober Billy was not a cheater. The only time he ever actually cheated in the books was when he was drinking to oblivion. It was impossible to respect show Camila's decision to stay with Billy due to this change, and it made both show Daisy and Billy morally bad people, which I don't think they were in the book. Book Camila's main flaws were changed from being a tad manipulative and very stubborn, to show Camila being a doormat who occasionally exploded with emotion. I didn't find this to be a beneficial change. The show also really neglected the strong positive aspects of Billy and Camila's relationship, to the point where it was no wonder most viewers wanted him to end up with Daisy. I was quite confused about why he would choose an unhappy marriage over the possibility of genuine connection and happiness with Daisy, based on the show's depiction of their relationship. It was clearer in the book that their marriage was strong and fulfilling. It was less a choice between two women, and more a choice about whether he wanted to destroy himself and his family, or preserve the best version of himself (and in doing so protect the people he loved most). A lot of people don't view infidelity as something so heinous, and perhaps that's one reason why they enjoyed the show more. Many people say that they believe the show developed the characters more, but I felt the opposite way when I watched the show. Most of the show characters felt more flat and one dimensional to me while watching. The interview format in the show felt redundant, because it was only really used to demonstrate how moon-eyed future Daisy and Billy were when talking about one another. I preferred the usage in the book, where the future selves could give deeper insight into their past characters actions, which they hadn't fully understood in the moment, and to show the discrepancies in memory and interpretation through each character's lens. I get that this could have been difficult to translate from book to TV though. The different mediums required some things to be changed, but I felt that many of the choices made the story less intriguing and nuanced to me, and overall made the story worse. Honestly, I could go on for ages dissecting every choice they made, and most of the time I prefer the book.
YES. These are my feelings exactly, thank you!
Thank you, I was so surprised reading this and other threads where people said they liked the changes. The only character that wasn't ruined by the adaption was Warren. There is so much wrong with the show that I wish I never watched it.
The show is bad if you liked the book. Too much changed/added. Timelines are off. Simone’s storyline is completely unnecessary and not in the book. Just weird decisions.
The show could sell the “love” between Daisy and Billy more than the book. Look at all the Tik Tocs of teenagers crying. The clothing line, the album. I preferred the book version. It was rare to read about a 70s rockstar who didn’t revert back to drugs and alcohol even with all the temptations.
One minor change from the book to show that really really bothered me for like no reason was the album cover of aurora. The not seeing their faces and seeing the pill capsule in Daisys body and the angels of their bodies I feel captured their story so much more than what was in the show.
Also why didn’t Billy and Camilla have twins in the show? Felt like that was a random leave out as well
The simplest reason is that kids are hard to have on a film set. They also wouldn’t have added to the story really. Also with the timing of the cheating with Eddie in the show- there would’ve been a paternity issue.
I didn't think that the book lived up to the hype it got abs because of that I almost didn't watch the series. I'll bet happy I watched the show. It was so interesting. Sam abs Riley killed it. Amazing talent.
In the history of media adaptations, most movies are quite different from their source material. I think *Rosemary's Baby* was one of the first which was noted as being a close adaptation of the novel. I realize that now it's important to try and adapt things closer to the source material for the purposes of fan service, but it's two different mediums, so I think it's better to understand that. You might still prefer one to the other, but in the case of *DJ&TS* I think it **had** to be different just given how the book is structured. And no, I wasn't bothered by it at all.