The Warriors Movie Site Forum

Anyone agree or disagree? I've been waiting to read it for 12 years and I was very disappointed. The first chapters were good, but then it went downhill!




[quote][/quote]

a friend of mine read the book and she told me all about it. i have no desire to read it. it's not what i expected it to be.

it was very long winded and dull. I wasn't expecting it to be action packed and have all the things we love about the movie in it, but there is not one gang fight in the book (c'mon). It focused too much on the feelings of the characters which had some good observations, but was in the end quite boring. Hill and Shaber are awesome. They took a mediocre book and made a very good film out of it. I think Yurick is a tad jealous about that. He did pretty much make fun of us for liking the movie. [quote][/quote]

yeah this is one of those rare occasions when the book sux and the movie is great! it's usually the other way around, i read it back when i was a kid b4 i saw the movie actually, on the original one by sol yurick, the cover is white and the lettering is in red, and there is a switchblade on the cover.

I agree.
I realize there is an age difference in the gang between the book and the movie, but that not withstanding--I felt that the book was slow, and those kids were so ignorant of the world around them. It wasn't just that they were inexperienced traveling---they really didn't know how to relate to anything outside their own home block.
The book has them 14 to 16---I always figured the movie had them 16-20.

the movie gang was older, and even though they didn't have alot more experience traveling--they at least had some idea of how to relate and cope to their surroundings.

But the book made them all sound so stupid--it was really hard to relate to any of the gang in the book.

Well, Sol Yurick did say in the prologue that at the time the book takes place (the early 60's), the gangs were quite ignorant of the city outside their own territories and were actually frightened to set foot outside their own turf. Also cars were pretty much not available to them & very few guns were around.

Well, wel, well. I disagree with all of you! I thought the book was very realistic. I grew up around gangs and basically that 's what the book is about. The movie is a glorified version of the book. All my friends that are/were in gangs were between the age es of 12 to 18. Very juvenile in thinking and they all come from broken homes, as exceptionally described in the closing of the book. Because they are part of a gang, they are not familiar with the world outside their turf. They understand that to venture onto an enemy's area is taboo.

Just a different opinion...

I was not saying that the book was not realistic---only that the book as written would not make a very good movie.

I am glad I read the book-but there are other gang based books that I thought were better--but I haven't found any gang movies that I think are as good as The Warriors is, and that is just my own opinion,
and you are right, it is just a difference of opinions and experiences.

I was just about to purchase the book and read, but seeing as u guys didnt like it, I guess I wont get it.

well if its that bad ill pass on the book too...

You see what you get wrote:Well, wel, well. I disagree with all of you! I thought the book was very realistic. I grew up around gangs and basically that 's what the book is about. The movie is a glorified version of the book. All my friends that are/were in gangs were between the age es of 12 to 18. Very juvenile in thinking and they all come from broken homes, as exceptionally described in the closing of the book. Because they are part of a gang, they are not familiar with the world outside their turf. They understand that to venture onto an enemy's area is taboo.

Just a different opinion...

yeah that's all good and well but in the book the murder an innocent guy and act like savages in doing so and there is no excuse for that

the book starts off ok for a few pages but you soon realise that "lunkface"and co. are not like the guys in the film,they are basically scum and you cannot compare the book and the film,the film is based on the book because some guys go to a meeting,it all kicks off and they have to get home,and that is the only connection.if sol yurick recieved money for the film he is one lucky guy.
the only good thing in the book is the end when the guy returns home to his house and you realise why he has no hope....i give the book 1 out of 10 and the film 10 out of 10

I just got the book a few weeks ago and I didnt like it either. I couldnt even get through the whole thing. I agree with the other posters in that the movie is one of the best ever but the book was a big let down. Before reading the book I had always given Sol Yurick the credit for the excellent storyline, but it appears that Walter Hill or who ever wrote the screen play should get the credit for that instead. there is a very big difference between the two!