Natural Born Killers: The Original Screenplay Paperback – August 3, 2000

Is was cool to be able to read the NBK script as it was intended by Tarantino. It is a very different tone than what the movie ended up being. I loved both! Check it out if you're a QT fan!

I always vaguely knew Tarantino didn’t love Oliver Stone’s version of NBK, but I never really knew why. And I’ve watched the movie a handful of times, and I love parts of it, but it never became a favorite.This (Tarantino’s original script) has a very different tone. The character motivations are different, much of the movie contained scenes tacked on by Stone, so this feels way more straight forward. I mean he seriously added 50% of what we see in the film.This is written like a novel, but still describes camera cues and effects. It focuses mostly on a couple killings and then their escape from prison. The lead up and escape is the majority of the story. The sort of trashy, early (90s era) reality TV angle is used more as a story telling device, a tool. Whereas in the movie, it felt cheesy and sort of unfocused.If you’re a big Tarantino fan it’s worth a read.

Got this as a gift for my husband and he really likes it.

Tarantino's original script for 'Natural Born Killers' is vastly superior to the movie. Oliver Stone's film version (while still entertaining and transgressive)is meandering and extreme for the sake of extremity (in everything from the jarring editing to unnecessary scenes-like the young woman-Scagnetti murder scene to Mickey hinting at the rape of his hostage and Mallory's subsequent seduction of the gas station attendant). To his credit, I understand what Stone is trying to achieve: a statement about media culture and an increasingly amoral American psyche, but he doesn't quite succeed, in my opinion. The result is an uneven movie with a bit too much padding.Unlike the original script, the film provides the background stories for Mickey and Mallory so that the audience can empathize with why they are the way they are. There is also a scene in which the killer couple have a spiritual epiphany after encountering a Native American shaman. Despite their respect for the shaman, Mickey accidentally kills him after a bad dream. The movie is effectively commenting on several things: The hypocrisy of a 50's American ideal of family and it's disillusioning affect upon our serial killing antiheroes, in addition, the shaman scene also screams of American hypocrisy-the history between the colonists and Native Americans and also an insincere, self-righteous idea of spirituality on the part of Mickey and Mallory. But these things are lost in translation-what exactly is the movie trying to be, a psychological profile of the American serial killer and how American history and culture shaped such human beings? Or, is it a satire of the 'serial killer' and the (media) culture surrounding him/her? Because Stone's film tries to do both at once, the film feels shallow (even if impassioned) since it cannot satisfy both topics completely.Tarantino's script, on the other hand, is much more focused. It knows exactly what it is-a black satire of serial killer culture in America. Mickey and Mallory are much more absent in Tarantino's version. Instead, the two are more of a symbol or driving force for the real story, that of the journalists and policemen whom are after them. The hypocrisy of this story is in the characterization of the policemen and journalists because they are less concerned with the welfare of the people than they are with furthering their careers, social status and so forth.The biggest change, however, is with Mickey and Mallory themselves, who are much more mythical here than in the movie. In the film we understand why they are so extreme (what with their backgrounds and all), not so with this script, where they are ambiguous-they serve more as moderators of the unjust (the corrupt policemen and the opportunist paparazzi), which heightens the satire because the roles of the just and the unjust have been reversed (Mickey and Mallory, although killers, represent love and are the only truly honest characters).The script has far less unnecessary story bits. As I said earlier, the Stone version has a scene in which Scagnetti kills a young woman. Why is this important? We already knew that he was an opportunist and a corrupt police officer. In the script, Scagnetti's corruption is hinted at several times but doesn't include the murder/rape scene, which would've been overkill. The script is much more subtle in this regard.Simpler and more focused than the film (not to mention much more fun), I highly recommend this original script. Get it with the flick and compare for yourself!

I watched the move and it was pretty good, but to know that Stone acually changed up the script to the point of totally disbanning from the original I got curious,i ordered this script not too long ago. Im hoping that the script is better because Tarantino is a genious

a great way to see how the movie differs from the screenplay. would love to have seen how it would have been different if QT wouldve directed

Nice

whatever stone did, here's what tarntula writ