I think it is safe to say that it is more common to hear “the book is much better than the movie” than the other way around. I like to read a good book and I love a good movie. If you consider all the failed attempts to convert great books into great movies, it is obvious that the task of transforming the books' story to a movie is not quite easy. With books, we can enter the minds of our characters in a way that we just cannot do in the audio-visual medium of film. We create the visuals with our imagination in books, but a good movie brings those visuals to life. At the risk of not being entirely accurate, a book’s strength is in going underneath the surface of things, a movie’s is of bringing that surface to life.
However, there are always
…show more content…
Let’s look at the things I love about the movie.
First, its sense of narrative. I love how the story is put together, where we start with that feather floating into that quaint town square and then enter the mind of a rather idiotic, yet charming character sitting on a bus bench chatting to a total stranger. The movie then expertly uses Tom Hanks’ voice-overs to flashback into Gump’s life, only occasionally coming back to the present to remind us that this is HIS story as HE sees it.
In that way, I find it rather easy to forgive its politics, because its worldview is a simplistic one that comes out of a rather simplistic, yet genuine person.
Second, its sense of history. What the movie does that the book really doesn’t do is turn Gump’s personal story into a story about America from the 1950s until the 1980s. From the early scenes of a young Gump teaching Elvis Presley to do that crazy dance of his to the scenes of a long-haired Gump in the late 1970s purchasing some stock in a “fruit company” that turns out to be Apple Computers, we get to watch not only Gump evolve, but America
…show more content…
They realized it was, at its core, a good idea—follow this idiot through various misadventures. But they decided to add a historical perspective to it and they decided to make it about how magical and unpredictable life can be, no matter who we are, and how important it is to be good-hearted to each other (because it is our loved ones who often help us through our toughest challenges).
I read one review on the Internet that said the book was better because it was darker. This might be true with regard to its politics—one of the few saving features of the book is Forrest’s frequent outbursts that the Vietnam War was “a bunch of shit.” In this way, book Forrest seems a bit more conscience and cynical about the way the world really works. And it might be darker in that Forrest frequently has to do things on his own, not relying on his friends, in order to get out of trouble. But for a book that is supposedly so dark, it was just too silly and too hard to believe
The differences in the movie and the book might have been intentional. If audiences were to read the book, watch the movie, and reach conclusions, I think they would have great understanding of what’s inside them both. For example, a scene in the movie in which Atticus tells his children why it is a sin to kill a mockingbird was not in the book; from that scene, I inferred on how that became the initial title of the book. By using both resources, I was able to gather information and grasp its contents tighter.
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
It reminds us of a time not so different from where we live now, a world filled with lies, hatred, and moral ambiguity. It’s a story that largely reminds us as humans who we are, prone to mistakes and preconceptions that can lead to disastrous results, but also capable of growth and redemption. This story really allows you to understand different philosophies, perceptions, and differing opinions of morality and
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.
There’s always been the argument of “Which is better?” when it comes to book versus movie. In the case of To Kill A Mockingbird, in my opinion, the movie lacks certain details needed to really see some of the themes Harper Lee is trying to get across. The movie leaves out some important characters. It also leaves out many certain events that are significant to the character development of Scout and Jem. These things, I believe are crucial to the story and message of To Kill A
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.
First of all, the movie is concise and more meaningful than the original book. Take an easy example of Macbeth, the movie
In conclusion, books and their movies are never the same. This tenet is known to cause some serious controversy in the secret world of fandoms, the community of people who are dedicated lovers of the same books, movies, TV shows, or any other form of media. John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men is a great example of the changes that differentiate between a novel and the book, as seen above. This book and its movie have obvious changes between the characters, the plot, and dialogue. These things are picked up in practically every book and its movie adaptation. Because of this, there are various discrepancies amongst enthusiasts debating whether the movie outshines the book, or vice versa. But it is all up to you to decide: Do apples taste better, or do oranges?
What is the most common debate between films and the book it was based off? Which medium delivered the characters more efficiently to it’s audience. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is not an exception. Convincing an all white jury that a black man is innocent is not an easy task. In the book and film Atticus Finch uses the rhetorical appeals and devices to help defend Tom Robinson and give justice to the case at hand. However, Film Atticus is more effective in his use of rhetorical appeals and devices because his body language can be seen, his tone of voice can be heard, and his emphasis can be clearly distinguished.
Personally, this novel seemed really powerful because it showed how someone’s innocence can be taken away with a blink of an eye. For instance, Robert Ross loved his sister Rowena and every animal he had seen reminded him of her because she loved animals. Another instance was when he joined the army, he obeyed orders and was told to kill animals even though he does not want to. When the German soldier spared Robert and let him walk away, the German soldier made a move but Robert instantly shot him thinking that he was reaching for his sniper when really he was reaching for his binoculars. Also, another instance was when Robert Ross was raped which of course, stripped away his innocence to the
I have never really met another character quite like Forrest Gump in a movie. And for that matter, I have never quite seen a movie like “Forrest Gump,” either. In order to describe Forrest Gump, it will take quite an amount of work to make the movie seem more conventional, or normal. The movie is a coined a comedy, I guess. It could be a drama film though, or even a dream. This movie is very magical and creates quite the picture of emotions for anyone who views it.
The book gets into much more detail and more inside the characters heads. We get to see how truly unpredictable Tyler is. On the other hand, the movie hits just as hard with seeing the bruises and blood. Not to mention the look on the men’s faces after they fight. You would expect it to be pain, but its relief. This is the way they vent. How they get away from their empty lives of working just to live. Away from the dead end jobs and people being condescending all day long. I would assume it’s sort of...
in the novel he is not shot down, and I think there is no need to add
... set the mood and create a sense of reality. Where as in the novel, the idea of talking animals taking over a farm did not seem as realistic nor is as entertaining as viewing the events ourselves. The novel was great and the text was more detailed, but the film seemed to bring the story to life.
Also, books usually have more characters and give continued suspense so that the reader will be hooked or addicted to finish the book to find out the story. On the other hand, movie producers need to eliminate so many details about the story in order to squeeze everything into one to two hours. Due to this, those people who love detail information about stories usually prefer books than movies as movies does not have a detailed information about the story. Furthermore, reading books can not only enhance the reader’s vocabulary and creativity, but also increase their reading and writing skills, while watching movies only provides entertainment (Lee, wordpress.com).