They really butchered the book

Me! I love both still cause it is a great movie still, but it could have been soooo much better if they kept everything like the book. I don't even understand why they changed all the stuff they changed. They changed a lot, and the book is so much better!

I wondered the same thing. I also wonder if I would've liked the movie better had I not read the book beforehand. Instead, I just found myself comparing the two and couldn't really enjoy the movie on its own.

just wonder the whole time why they changed SO MUCH?

I just read the differences between the book and the movie, and I think the changes mentioned work better for the movie than the original storyline.

I never read the book and probably won't ever read the book. I am more concerned with the movie being a good movie rather than following the book. Movies can't follow the same rules as a book.

A movie only has one to two hours to present a full story while a book may take a week or two of multiple reading sessions to finish the story. This means the movie has to provide a bigger bang in a short duration or otherwise it becomes too boring, weak, or confusing. A book provides lots of detail and history about the characters and environment while a movie must provide visuals of events or memories that present enough detail to make it into a story.

SPOILER BELOW
Based on other comments by others in this forum, I will provide an example. I like the idea of Nikki coming to the dance rather than Pat never talking to her like it occurs in the book. I don't mean this as an insult on the book. I just think it makes the movie ending more conflicting and mysterious by having Nikki show up rather than him just seeing her somewhere. The fact that we have no idea what Pat says to her makes it a big mystery where we have to judge her facial expressions.

I feel this is a rare cases of the movie being better than the book. The plot is tightened up. Pat's belief that he and Nikki will get back together is somewhat credible in the movie, where he has been in the hospital for maybe a year, while in the book, he was in the hospital for a number of years (although that time frame would make is weight loss/muscle gain more believable). In the book, Pat and Tiffany dance in a modern dance exhibition, not a ballroom dancing competition--no parley bet that adds importance to the dance contest for the whole family.

And there is a longer ending to the book that involves Pat getting beaten up in North Philly--the movie is more concise, neater in the romantic ending. As well as the real resolution between Pat and Nikki, as someone else noted.

I did it the other way round. There are some good aspects to the book, but the whole Indian gridiron thing became silly in it.

Me. The book made me laugh in places. There wasn't anything funny in this movie. The movie changed the characters so much. In the book, the brother was supportive and welcoming. The father was cold and non-communicative, being pushed by the mother to connect with his son. And he wasn't a gambler. Except for his delusions about getting back with Nikki, he seemed to be doing well at his parents house. The therapist was a great character in the book who actually didn't change too much, he just got cut for time. I loved that Pat used football as a way to reconnect with his family and old life but in the movie he wasn't interested in the Eagles really. That was a HUGE change.