Lone Survivor : Book vs Movie (spoilers)

I've read and reread Lone Survivor several times and have seen the movie a few as well. Just caught a few minutes of it on HBO a few days ago, and I'm still shocked how wrong they got the deaths of Murphy and Dietz. I've always wondered if Berg sought Marcus' approval when developing these scenes. I know Marcus was very involved with the project and telling his teammates' stories accurately was his priority, so the discrepancies between the book and film confuse me.

In the movie Mike Murphy climbs out into the open to make his historic and heroic call for support and is shot/killed. In the book he makes his call, is shot and mortally wounded, but still manages to make his way back down to Marcus and continue fighting. They are ultimately separated and Marcus hears Murphy screaming for help from over a hill, but can't get to him because the hail of bullets coming down the mountain is too fierce. According to Marcus, it's something that haunts him to this day and still prevents him from sleeping many nights.

As Dietz's case, in the movie he is dropped at the top of a ridge when there is an explosion and Marcus falls down the mountain leaving Danny alone, hopelessly wounded and defenseless. The Taliban overrun him and strip him of his gear and personal effects, and eventually shoot him point-blank. In the book, Marcus is carrying Dietz fireman-style and Dietz is shot in the head just before they jump off the cliff together. They survive the fall, find cover and Danny dies in Marcus' arms. Later when the Ranger/Pararescue teams find his body he still has all his weapons and personal effects, and Marcus comments that the Taliban don't strip and desecrate our soldiers like Al-Qaeda fighters do.

Axelson's death is shrouded in mystery, but his body was located over a mile from where Marcus last saw him before they were separated by an RPG blast. He was also completely out of ammo, indicating he continued to fight on his own. In my opinion, the way his death was portrayed was the most accurate according to the book, even though we know the least about what really happened to him.

My question is simple: why would Peter Berg stray so far from the book, when in Marcus' words 'the book is the de-brief', and did he get Marcus to sign off on these artistic liberties?

I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy!

I wondered the same. The death of both Danny and Michael would've been gut wrenching to witness on film if it were done the way the book gives the account.

I also disliked the ending because it made the US the heroes rather than Gulab and the tribe. It ruined nearly everything that they did for him by showing Al Queida as not being scared of losing recruits from the neighboring villages.

Finally, a reply!

I loved this movie when I first saw it because I'd read the book several times and felt the story NEEDED to be told. Since then I've seen the movie several more times (never from start to finish though) and it could have been done so much better.
The deaths of Danny and Mike were just done wrong, and it is a disservice to them and their families. The death of Axelson is up to interpretation, but his body was found far from where Marcus last saw him and he was completely out of ammo. If Berg was going to take some artistic liberties it seems he could have done so with Axe's 'last stand', and perhaps left Mike and Danny's the way Marcus described in his book.
The rescue scene was also a travesty as you mentioned. Not only does it take credit away from Gulab and the villagers, but it ignores the CSAR squad that patrolled the mountains for days under hellish conditions. It also glosses over the village elder who walked for miles through Taliban controlled territory to get Marcus' note to the US military forces in the area.
I could go on and on. I just hope someone remakes this movie some day and sticks as close to the book as Hanks & Spielberg did with 'Band of Brothers'.

I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy!

I didn't have a problem with axe's death because, as you mentioned, the circumstances are unknown other than being out of ammo and a mile away from where he was last seen. They clearly showed the out of ammo part, so no issues with that.

As mentioned, the book painted a much more dramatic/horrible picture of what happened to the other 2 members. Giving the cliche staring off in the beautiful sunset death to Mike is a disservice to what he went through. Danny also went through a lot more. I didn't like the way they portrayed Shane either. He wasn't some green recruit itching to prove himself.

Then they put in a death scene with Marcus that never happened. Maybe it was to show that a part of him died on the mountain wth his friends, but it was unnecessary.

I'm not sure why they changed the more dramatic, horrifying, and heroic parts of the book to the Hollywood crap in the movie. I do hope they remake it and it follows the book more. Also, casting a more appropriate actor for Marcus would've been useful as I feel mark wahlberg was the only miscast in the film. Hell, Eric Bana would've fit the role of Marcus better and mark could've taken the role of the chief.

I'm a big Wahlberg fan so I actually liked him as Marcus initially. Mostly I believed having an A-list actor in the lead role would lure people to the film and then hopefully to the book. This was my main gripe with '13 Hours' which is a story that equally NEEDS to get out there, but there were no A-list actors to draw in the casual moviegoer. After seeing LS I also wondered if there wouldn't have been a better choice for the part of Marcus.

I could go on forever about the liberties Berg took with the script. From the Hollywood shootout ending, to Murphy's death staring into the sunset, to the rattlesnake, to Luttrell's 'death' scene. I'll give Berg the benefit of the doubt on the lattermost that he was being symbolic, as Marcus has said in numerous interviews that he 'died' out on that mountain, most notably in his interview with Matt Lauer. It just seems amazing to me that Marcus would have signed off on these deviations from his book which he refers to as 'the debrief.' I'm curious what he thought of the final cut, but I'm sure we'll never know.

I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy!

I'm a fan of wahlberg as well and initially didn't have a problem with it. After watching the film, I realized there were better options.

Oddly enough, I really wanted a scene with a infamous soda bottle as well. I'd love to know Marcus' thoughts on the film as well.

The soda bottle! How did they not think to include that? I was shocked they didn't include the scene when Marcus is hiding in a crevasse and snipes the two Taliban lookouts on the cliff, sending both plummeting down the mountain.

I'm the guy who does his job. You must be the other guy!

They missed quite a few opportunities by leaving memorable scenes out of the film. It was still good, but it could've been much better.

Movies generally never do make it as good as the book. I imagine there's one or two movies that improved a book. Not very many I'm sure..

Book so much better then film. Also had a problem with certain deaths, events not in order of timeline stated in book. Things left out like the Pepsi bottle, events in the village, Marcus couldn't walk and others. I enjoy Berg films but I thought he dropped the ball on this one. Partly my fault because of my own build up from reading the book. Wasn't a big fan of the cast either. Foster was great and I'm good with Emile. I'm not a huge Wahlberg fan and couldn't get past his acting and his height. Marcus is a big boy but I get itit's a movie and you can't get everything perfect. Murph was a badass and Taylor didn't do him justice.
Oh yea, then there is that damn duck scene.
All said it sounds like I hate the movie but I did enjoy. It just could of been better and should have