Recently read Tarantino's script for Natural Born Killers. To be specific, the first listed draft on SS before it was rewritten by Oliver Stone and co.

I'll assume anyone who reads this is familiar with the Oliver Stone film so I won't go into plot details or whatnot outside of compare/contrast.

Anyway, I've always wondered how Tarantino's originally script differed from the film. Not how much; I think any Tarantino fan knows that he was unhappy with Stone's version even to this day (I was finally inspired to read the script after an Opie & Anthony interview I found online). Not how much but simply how.

There's definitely similarities to be found between the two. A lot of Tarantino's dialogue made the cut. Word for word more than a good number of times. Even one of his action lines was turned into dialogue for Robert Downey Jr. The theme of violence and the media is also present in both the script and the film. Perhaps they're examined differently (and certainly to different extents) but both are there. But what differences there are between the two are glaring to say the least.

The biggest difference between the script and the film is its star characters, Mickey & Mallory. In Tarantino's script, they're the plot. In the film, they're the plot and the protagonists. They certainly aren't the protagonists in the script. Mallory barely has any lines (other than song lyrics) and Mickey doesn't get a lot of dialogue until the 60 page mark or so. In the script, the protagonist, more than anyone would be Wayne Gale, Robert Downey Jr.'s character in the film.

The opening scenes from both the script and the film are practically identical. After that, they abruptly part ways. In the beginning of Tarantino's script, Mickey and Mallory are already in prison. In the film, they don't get there until halfway through. In the script, Mickey and Mallory's backstory is revealed through a rough cut of Wayne Gale's Mickey and Mallory TV special, essentially in mockumentary form. The whole business of them killing Mallory's parents is summed up in two shots (as opposed to the film where it had its own sequence starring Rodney Dangerfield - one which Tarantino hated BTW). This section of the script takes up nearly half the pages and doesn't end until round the 70s-80s (if I recall correctly). Elements of the video appear in the film but only in snippets toward the end.

That said, pretty much the entire first act of the film was written by Oliver Stone and co. with the exception of a couple flashbacks and dialogue. In that time, they really beefed up the character of Scagnetti, Tom Sizemore's character. He's in the script but isn't a major character nor does he have much development. Same goes for Tommy Lee Jones's character, McClusky who is actually a combination of two different characters from the script. Both of these characters were made into much more slithery, loathsome, perverted and, in Scagnetti's case, violent characters. Essentially, they become bigger adversaries to Mickey and Mallory so a few Mexican standoffs from the script have much more resonance in the film.

Wayne Gale's character is about the same in both, albeit not Australian.

It's strange, actually. I would say the film had a lot more going for it as far as character development is concerned. Mickey and Mallory are certainly developed in the script but in a much more detached way (via the mockumentary format); it feels much less like their movie. The other characters aren't quite as strong. On the other hand, Natural Born Killers is a very strange movie and has its share of cartoony character moments, many of which don't work for people, especially Tarantino fans.

...which brings me to the second most glaring difference between the two: the tone. I'm actually not sure what Tarantino was going for with this one. The script feels like a fusion of mockumentary and psychological thriller and to a lesser extent, a love story. I'd say a character study as well but the script feels so detached from the characters, it's hard to say. I guess we'll have to wonder forever what the film would've looked like if Tarantino did it.

The film was much more politically motivated and was definitely meant to take a stab at the media and the States' obsession with violence. The interview scene in the script is very simple, almost comical, while in the film, they took advantage of many openings left in Tarantino's dialogue to insert excerpts from the Heraldo Rivera/Charles Manson interview. Like I said, the theme is present in both but Tarantino never takes a stance. I actually think his only weakness as a writer is his inability to write anything with genuine real world resonance or even real emotion. Even he more sombre moments of Inglourious Basterds feel synthetic. Stone and co. definitely push the theme to the breaking point.

The violence is the third most glaring difference. The film is, of course, infamous for its violence. It really is graphic and grotesque. To the point, actually, that I'd say Stone failed to make an art/politically minded film. It feels like an exploitation film. Cannibal Holocaust had its political overtones too but it was still an exploitation film. That's how I see the film anyway, even though Stone would wholeheartedly disagree. Like I said, he failed... at least doing what he wanted. I still think the film's amazing.

In the script, there's only one or two scenes I can really think of that were over-the-top graphic and brutal. One of which, a scene in a courtroom which doesn't appear in the film, would've gone down as the equivalent to the ear scene in Resevoir Dogs, the opening of Pulp Fiction or the Dennis Hopper/Christopher Walken scene in True Romance. The most talked about, quoted, memorable Tarantino moment from that particular film. Other than that, the violence is usually understated and more psychologically disturbing than anything. There's a scene where a cop is killed by rioters in prison but you only see it through shadows on the wall. It has a much deeper resonance that way, I think. There's no exploitation feel though.

It really is amazing how much a script can change between when it's written and production. Disheartenly so actually. The whole tone, dynamics, practically the face of Tarantino's script changed. In this case, however, I think both the script and the film were quite good. You really have to wonder what Tarantino could've made of it if the film were in his hands.