Here's an article comparing American Sniper the movie to the book

I had not read the book before I saw the movie, I'm sure anyone who did probably knew of these inaccuracies right away. (Things like what caused Kyle to originally enlist, his first sniper kill, the fact that he never personally came into contact with Mustafa or anyone called "The Butcher) however this kind of thing happens all the time with these movies. Lone Survivor had similar inaccuracies.

I guess my question is this: Would the movie be better if they stayed closer aligned with Chris Kyle's story instead of turning him into essentially a super hero of sorts with specific bad guys for him to go up against.

For those that read the book, would you have found that more enjoyable? Would it have had a bigger impact?

I thought the movie was really good. Like you said, I was expecting stuff like this to come up.

The introspective parts of the movie were what really worked for me. So I do think if they would have kept it a little more focused on Kyle, it could have been better. I think the comparison I would make for what I think it could have been is The Hurt Locker, which I enjoyed more.

That being said, it's a lot more difficult to pull off that type of movie. With Eastwood at the helm, this was probably the better direction.

I'd rather the movie stick to the source material

Some of the variations and adaptations are done for the sake of cramming a 400 page book into a 2+ hour movie. (E.G. The rodeo days, enlistment, Taya meeting, etc.) Others were done for dramatic effect (Mustafa, Butcher, 9/11 link). I excuse the former, but would have preferred they left off the latter.

One of the deviations is done so sloppily, it amazes me that they allowed it to stay. While in BUD/S, Kyle is asked his age and says he's 30. Then 9/11 happens toward the end of his BUD/S training. But, Kyle was born in 1974, so he only would have been 26-27 on 9/11. Not sure why they would lie about his age while going through BUD/S.

quote:

---

So I do think if they would have kept it a little more focused on Kyle, it could have been better

---

? The entire movie was literally about him.

I mean as opposed to the Butcher and the opposing sniper. Make it more man vs self instead of man vs man.

Gottcha, makes sense.

This thing's doing LOTR numbers. Pretty crazy.

quote:

---

While in BUD/S, Kyle is asked his age and says he's 30. Then 9/11 happens toward the end of his BUD/S training. But, Kyle was born in 1974, so he only would have been 26-27 on 9/11. Not sure why they would lie about his age while going through BUD/S.

---

So are you saying that his age being 3-4 different impacted your enjoyment of the movie? Why does that at all matter?

That wouldn't bother me while watching the movie, but why not get easy facts like that right if you're purporting to tell a true story?

Exactly. It didn't impact my enjoyment, it was just a pointless change/error. It didn't add anything to the story so why change it for the sake of change?

his age is all jacked up on his wiki page too. I read it and the timeline didn't make sense. I just blew it off to wiki having it wrong (imagine that).

I liked the conversion from book to movie for American Sniper more than I did for Lone Survivor. I think I actually enjoyed AS more for that reason. It seemed like there were more (or maybe larger?) discrepancies in LS that were done for dramatic effect than in AS. Although, there was still some Hollywood influence in AS.

Mustafa and The Butcher, as arch-enemies was a waste. The film would have been much more succesful if the enemy essentially was faceless. The Butcher was important to show the brutality of the enemy, as was the video of Mustafa's killings, but the whole terror that an enemy sniper brings is that you have no idea when he's around and who he is - why not highlight that in film? I'm sure tehre were other ways to portray the Butcher, but showing that there were families willing to risk and pay with their lives to free and better Iraq was a good addition, IMO.