Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Harry Potter movie vs book differences
Harry potter books vs movies differences
Harry potter books vs movies differences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Harry Potter movie vs book differences
When you see a movie that is based on a book you might think that it won’t follow it at all. For many movies, this is true except for when it comes to Harry Potter. There are many similarities in the books and the movies, but because the Harry Potter fandom is so big they will always be able to tell even the smallest of differences, for example, if one of the characters was supposed to be wearing glasses people would get angry with the writers for it. There are many people who will get angry over the smallest of things, but overall Harry Potter did the best at following along with the book. There are many similarities between the book and the movies, like how almost all of the characters are the same, and they look almost exactly how you think that they would …show more content…
There are also many recurring jokes and problems like how Seamus keeps blowing things whenever he tries to do even the simplest of spells. However, the director of the movie Chris Columbus did a pretty good job keeping the movie on track with the book the entire time and almost everything was the same. While there are many things that are the same in this book, there are also quite a few differences too. For instance, when the Dursleys take Harry to the zoo, Harry makes the glass disappear, in the movies, it reappears trapping Dudley inside for the entertainment of the audience. In the book, Dudley falls inside the tank, but the glass doesn’t reappear, and the zookeeper tries to figure out where it went. Another difference is that in the book, Hagrid knows who Harry is immediatly, while in the books, Hagrid thinks that Dudley is Harry when Harry is hidden from view. Even though these are some very small
I will tell how the Call of the Wild book is different than the movie and how the movie is different than the book.As well as contrasting I will also compare them. The movie was extremely different than the book. There were so many different things, I can't explain, but I am. The movie and the book were opposite in some parts.There were so many same things too.
To begin, there are many similarities and differences in the characters personalities. One similarity would be Aunt polly not having the hear Tom when he was being naughty in both the book and the movie. Another similarity would be Huck and Tom always acting michiviouse they’re always going on adventures and causing trouble for adults. One difference would be Huck in the movie seemed a little self centered, he seemed that way because when he had the chance to help Muff he didn’t want to because he was scared he would be killed by Injun Joe. Another difference would be Muff seemed more caring in the movie like when he was telling stories to the kids and he took them in the cave which made you feel a little sorry ...
So many books or pieces of literature have been made into films. At times the films can mirror exactly what the author wrote and hoped to convey, but often films can either create this sense of enhancement of the book or distort it completely due to more or less background information and a change the perspective of the main character. The book Into the Wild, written by John Krakauer was one of those movies that was recreated into film by director Sean Penn. This is a story of a young man who is unsettled with the poisoned ways of society. He goes on to destroy his previous identity and creates a new one, he abandons his home, car, life-savings, and family life to live on the road and in the wilderness of Alaska. It was mentioned he was trying to escape society as a whole and find himself and happiness. Both the book and the film follow a pretty consistent plot that correlate with each other, both making it evident that Chris was a polarizing subject. So, why does the book portray Chis McCandles as a charismatic, outgoing, well-educated nice kid, as where the movie portrays him more as foolish, immature, unprepared boy biting off more than he can chew? It all depends on your interpretation of both sources within the given information. The following comparison will address the book versus film version of Into the Wild and raise the issue of the amount of background information given in the book versus the film and the change in perspective of the main character Christoper Johnson McCandles.
Difference number one starts at the beginning of the movie. In the book Harry receives a clipping from the Daily Prophet that is supposed to help him with his future. On the other hand, in the movie Harry receives a cake that reminded him that it was his birthday. In difference number one the film omitted Molly’s pride in Percy’s becoming Head Boy.
The movie and the story had some of the same characters but some weren't exactly the same. The movie introduced many different characters and changed some of the others. For example, the movie had the plant lady and had the mentor of Anderton as the founders of Precrime while in the book, Anderton was the only founder of Precrime. Also, Witwer wasn't blond he had black hair and Kapler wasn't named Kapler he was named Crow. In the story they had the red head Fleming who did not exist
One way the movie and the book were the same was the dialogue and quotes in the movie were dead on to those in the book. It really added to the movie and made it feel more like the book, unlike most movies made from books. Another stunning reason they were the same is the movie had all of the same names of characters from in the book. That is normally extremely rare in cases like this. There were also a lot of little similarities in the book and the movie.
There are usually differences in two different versions of something. This can often be seen when a book is made into a movie. There are many similarities and differences in the book and movie versions of To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
The books, A Wrinkle in Time and And Then There Were None, both have many differences in the movie versions. The directors of both movies change the plot to make the movie see fit to what they may have imaged the book to be, while still keeping the story line the same.
The film To Kill a Mockingbird and the book have a lot of similarities, but at the same time a lot of differences. The differences varied from really little things to very big things. One thing that changed in the movie was that the whole movie started right with the cases, in the book it gave us some more background into their lives and more of an interest in Boo Radley before jumping into the case. Another difference between the book and the movie was when Jem, Dill, Scout went to look in the window of the Radley’s, the gunshot was aimed at Jem, not after they got out. Jem’s overalls weren’t ripped and sewn back together, but they were folded and placed onto the fence. One big difference from the movie and the book was the fact that they
The novel “The Sign of the Four”, written by Arthur Conan Doyle is about Sherlock Holmes and his partner, Watson. The book follows them throughout their adventures, however, only the beginning will be discussed. What could possibly have sparked much interest in Doyle’s works that film adaptations from 1954-2010 by various movie directors? Was it the resolute mindset of Sherlock Holmes? Was it his uncanny detective work? His professional use of drugs? Or perhaps was it his ideology? Such beginnings are what writers like K.M. Weiland excels in; to craft an irresistible lure for their audience of fish. Doyle’s book introduces us to a multitude of questions and concerns, which according to Tim O’Brien is meant to “not explain or to resolve, but
The book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone differs from the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in many ways. Most of these differences include characters and scenes. The two ways to discover this Harry Potter adventure are to either read the book or watch the movie. In fact, a person would want to read the book if they wanted the entire perception of the story and all of the information inside; whereas, a person would want to watch the movie if they wanted a rough sketch of the story. The two have dissimilarities but the person choosing to read the book or watch the movie is in charge of what they want to have. That is, the entire story or just a rough sketch of the story.
The book, "Being There," is about a man named Chance, who is forced to move out of the house he lived in his whole life and his experience in the outside world. Based on the success of the book, the movie, "Being There," was made. The author of the book, Jerzy Kosinski, also wrote the screenplay for the movie. I think the major difference between the book and the movie is that in the book, we get to read what Chance is feeling and thinking, but in the movie, we only get to see his actions.
Many major differences even change the meaning of the story. Some of the main differences in the movie include, there was no Battle of the Windmill, there was a different ending, and all of the pigs didn’t walk on two legs. The Battle of the Windmill was a major event in the plot of the book, but the movie failed to mention it at all. In the movie, it shows the windmill being blown up, but there was never an actual battle.