Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
difference about gone with the wind book and movie
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: difference about gone with the wind book and movie
Gone with the Wind is one of my favorite love stories of all time. Margaret Mitchell wrote the beautiful story in 1928 and first published in 1936. The book is one of the best-selling novels to this date. Shortly after the book was published, it sold over one million copies within six months, as well as being awarded the Pulitzer Prize. The book immediately caught the eye of a young producer named David O. Selznick who immediately purchased the film rights for $50,000. The movie was just as big of a hit as the novel. Gone with the Wind won ten Academy Awards out of thirteen nominations. By today’s box office records, after adjusting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is still the most successful film in box office history. (IMdB) This captivating story transitions from the book to the big-screen magically. I will never forget the first time I watched this film. The characters are so animated that you can’t help but be immediately captivated. It also could be the beauty of Vivian Leigh, the actress that plays the spoiled southern belle, Scarlett. I cannot say that I prefer the novel over the movie. The novel has so much more story that was not placed into the film. I watched them movie before reading the book so I already had a preconceived idea of the characters. The novel leaves so much more to the imagination and really paints the dark picture of what it must have been like for people during this era in the South during the Civil War. The movie does a fantastic job as well but I don’t think it is as in depth, which is expected because of the length of the novel. The novel is over 1,000 pages and the film is 238 minutes, making it the longest movie at the time it was released, (1939). There are some very notable di... ... middle of paper ... ...ll died in infancy only leaving Scarlett and her two sisters. In the film, there is no mention of the brothers. This explains to me the dynamic between Scarlett and her love for her father. She being the strongest of the three daughters was treated by her father more like a son. I believe this is where Scarlett’s strength and patriarch way of thinking is developed. Scarlett felt like the protector of the family and had a very strong pride for her family plantation. The whole movie is her struggle to save Tara and get her true love, Ashley. I don’t find enough time to read as much as I would like to. There are many movies that I have seen that I have not been able to read the books of. I don’t always like the movie as well as the book, but in this case, Gone with the Wind in both book and movie are amazing and one of the best written classic of all time. .
The book The River Between Us by Richard Peck was interesting, it talks and describes the different events that happened to Tilley the main character. The movie Gone With the Wind was easier to understand because it showed the different characters. Just as the book, the movie Gone With the Wind also describes the different events that happened in the life of Scarlett, the main character. Even though the book and the movie are different because they describe the life of two different women, they are similar because their lives were effected by the Civil War.
To Kill a Mockingbird has left an imprint on my mind about how I perceive that era. I have had the opportunity to not only read the book, but to watch the corresponding movie. Both have their pros and cons, but one in particular has really made a connection with me. The movie is my
Everybody expects to see the best parts of the book when going to see a movie that is based on a book, but most of the time “The book is better than the movie” and that is what happened in Into the Wild. The movie’s theme is somehow same but the way it is presented quite different than the book. The book Into The Wild, is a travel essay written by Jon Krakauer. It is about a young suburban man from a well to do family who hitched hiked to Alaska without informing his family. He was Christopher Johnson McCandless, a fine man but stubborn with his own idealism. He disappeared immediately after graduating from college with honors on the summer of 1990, donated his grad school fund of $24,000 to Oxfam, abandoned his car and belongings, burnt all the cash and identity, changed his name into Alexander Supertramp and started wandering across Northern California. He worked in several places, made new friends, and lived where people welcomed him. Finally he reaches Alaska, his dreamland. He was found by moose hunters dead in the bus 142. He was very much influenced by Leo Tolstoy who gave up his wealth and wandered into woods. He actually avoided his parents and the social surrounding but unfortunately he died lack of topographic map, flooding in the river and eating the moldy seeds. Krakauer portrays Chris as a gloomy, grudge-holding, very unlike the happy wanderer of the film. The movie excluded essential parts from the book and concentrates on Chris’s quest. It focuses more on Chris being adventurous, friendly, warm yet resentful towards his parents while Krakauer shows other side of Chris.
Many movies based on books, have similarities and differences between them. The same goes for To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Although the movie ran smoothly there were many elements missing from it or that differentiated from the book. Of course there were similarities and the overall theme and message of the novel was reached in the movie. Although the book was more detailed, the movie had the same plot line for the most part. There were some high points and favorite characters in both t he movie and in the book and overall both of these works of creations were very enjoyable.
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
A movie rarely does a book justice, the To Kill a Mockingbird movie truly brought the book to life. However, the book is still better than the movie. The book is far superior because, the movie deviates character development by leaving out certain events, the movie is missing key characters such as Aunt Alexandra, and some casting choices took away from certain characters.
Gone with the Wind is a classic fictional love story that depicts life in the old south before, during and after the Civil war. The book was originally written in 1936 by Margret Mitchell, the movie adaptation was released in 1939, directed by Victor Fleming, and staring Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh. Ms. Mitchell grew up listening to Civil war stories from confederate veterans. It was reported that they told her everything; everything that is, except that they had lost the war, she found that out when she was 10 years old. Though the book was written 71 years after the Civil War ended, Ms. Mitchell did her research and appears to have drawn inspiration from those childhood stories that she was told. This is apparent in the detailed description of the clothing, houses, and everyday discussions and interactions of the characters throughout the book. Though not all historically correct most of what is in the book is accurate. During the time the movie was released, “damn” was considered to be vulgar and controversial and they used the term “darkies” to describe the slaves.
Neither the novel nor film version of To Kill A Mockingbird is superior to the other, just different. In the book you delve more into the separate characters while in the film you see the relationships in action. The book gives you a broader view of everything, but at the same time the movie points out everything that seems important. Lastly, the novel shows Scout as a girl caught in the middle, when the movie seems to paint Scout as a girl without a inkling of what is going on.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
To begin with, there are many similarities between the book and movie To Kill A Mockingbird. For example, Tom Robinson died in an attempt to escape from prison in both the book and the movie. In my opinion Tom's death was crucial to the original story, and I believe the movie would have been seen as over-sentimental if the scriptwriters had let him live. Another important similarity between the book and movie, is the mutual fascination between Arthur Radley and the children. Arthur, or Boo as the children called him, left them gifts such as dolls, a watch, and chewing gum in the hollow of a tree in his yard. The children made expeditions to the Radley house to look in the window just so they could catch a glimpse of Boo Radley. I believe this captivation was important to the story line because it was the main foundation of the children's imagination. A big part of the story was imagining Boo to be some kind of freak that came out at night to eat cats and squirrels. An additional similarity between the book and movie is the respect showed to Atticus by the African American community of Maycomb. They respected him for his courage, which by his definition meant, "It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do."(112). I think the mutual respect between the African Americans and Atticus was important not only to Atticus, but also to his children. Their father and the sad story and memories of Tom Robinson taught them the wrongs of racism. I think if the movie producers had taken out the good relationship between Atticus and the African Americans, it would be taking away one of the most important themes of the story. There are many other significant similarities between the book and the movie.
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
I like the reading book better than watching the movie because there are more facts in the book than the movie. Maybe I just like reading books better than watching movies. That’s my opinion. What’s yours (if you’ve read the book and seen the movie)?
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
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.
From reading the book and watching the movie, I think the book was more insightful, but the movie was more entertaining. The only problem with the movie is that you don't know what is going through Chance's mind and his background information. The movie does help make some things clearer by seeing it, instead of just picturing it in your mind. The added scenes in the movie helps to put some humor into the story and make it more entertaining. By just watching the movie, some people could be confused if they don't know some background on Chance. I think that by reading the book, you can understand the story better and by watching the movie you can enjoy the story better.