Wasn't this better the first time?

If ownership of stories that revolve around general subjects (like someone dying young, or an unlikely couple falling in love) were staked out by the first to do it, we'd be watching Greek tragedies and a little bit of Shakespeare and his predecessors.

It was also done in "Love Story," "Death Be Not Proud," "Brian's Song," "Bang the Drum Slowly," "Terms of Endearment" and (for the literal minded) "Dying Young." Along with a dozens or hundreds of others.

at least this version stuck to 'this is going to be love story" narrative.

Fault in the Stars Hazel said this wasn't going to be some romantic boy meets girl story where they get a happy ending" and while they didn't get their happy ending, it was a typical boy meets girl, boy melts girl cold exterior, and they fall in love.

but then again Earl, lied to us to, by reassuring us dying girl isn't going to die, when it got really sad and serious, because the audience couldn't fanthom the possibility of a sad ending where dying girl GASPS dies, lol.

This was the first movie of the whole group of movies in recent years dealing with cancer that comes off as real.

This movie was hands down superior to TFIOS, imo. It had way more heart. And I liked TFIOS.

They're different stories. Different types of films. Not even really comparable other than the fact they both have a girl with cancer.

I loved TFIOS. I loved the book, and I loved the movie. That being said, I watched this and thought "This is what TFIOS would be like if TFIOS was a really really good movie." Both movies had their fair share of sentimentality, but this one seemed more true to life, and the cinematography was a million times more interesting to watch. The book version of this movie wasn't all that great (TFIOS was much better), but this book was made to be a movie.

Wow you're right. A young person has cancer in both movies! They must be the same exact story!

If you bothered to watch the film or read anything about it at all, you'd quickly and plainly see that the films have nothing in common besides the one superficial point I made above. But whatever great post

TWO MOVIES I WATCHED FEATURED A TERRORIST. THAT MEANS THEY ARE THE SAME. /S