Major letters involving early murders are still shown in the film, but most of the letters, like announced but unconfirmed kill letters, were cut out of the film, once again to shorten an already lengthy movie. But in all honesty, I think it was a very good decision on Fincher’s part. One thing that was technically compressed in order for this movie not to be super long was the script itself. As mentioned before, the Zodiac screenplay was huge. But that doesn’t stop David Fincher from trying to shorten up the script. In order to shorten it up, Fincher had asked the cast to speak faster. While this is more of a small form of compression and probably only shorten up the film by 10-20 minutes or so, I still think it’s such an interesting idea for compression, and it honestly goes really well for the film. It doesn’t change anything about the film’s overall …show more content…
One thing that make the film stand out compared to the book is the the overall character arcs. Surprisingly enough, while the story is about the chase for the serial killer, pretty much like the book, the overall main characters had gotten to three characters: Paul Graysmith, David Toschi, and Paul Avery. One thing that was very clear when it came to the book was that Graysmith never intended to be the main character for the story, more of like a narrator and evidence collector for the case that had him obsessed for the longest time. Meanwhile in the film, the film seemed to be more focused on Graysmith. It shows everything around Graysmith, like letters coming in from the Zodiac to his workplace at the Chronicle, or how his daily life changes within more of his obsession of the Zodiac. It also seems to depict this rise of friendship and cooperation between Graysmith, the Chronicle and the police and its downfall as every individual had come to distance each other and want to forget about Zodiac: everyone except Graysmith would be the only obsessive enough to still be on the