One major difference between the movie and book is the events that took place. One example is when Charly met Fay. This never happened in the movie. But in the movie, when he met her he let all of his inner feeling out into the open and had a great time. In the movie he only went away for awhile and even then he only had what seemed to be a few short flings. With Fay, Charly was able express himself to her. Another event that was changed was the little field trip Charly took to Boston. Charly never went on this trip to Boston in the book. It doesn’t really play an important role in the story but then why did Heynes make such a useless change?
One of the most obvious changes being in that the book is understandably vastly wordy in comparison to the film, which is wordless at points, and deeply internal. The novel takes place almost completely inside the characters heads, which turn out to be overly complex and complicated, which was understandably one of the hardest elements to convert to the screen. What the novel depicts through long sentences, paragraphs, and long scenes, the film concludes in one angry stare or longing glance – showing the audience what a certain character is thinking, and how they may behave as the story continues. It takes the reader some time to ease into McEwan's complex structural pattern and slow, considered pacing. The film on the other hand, with its extended silent pauses, excess dialogue, and striking images, make it more accessible.
The plot in the film is very similar to the book but in parts, especially towards the end, the plot is slightly different to the film. The plot is varied in the film to show
What is a dream deferred? Is it something children imagine and lose as they grow up. Do dreams ever die, as we find out, the world is it what it seems. The play A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry and Harlem by Langston Hughes talk about dreams deferred. It shows a African American family struggling to make their dreams a reality. Although Walter, Ruth, Mama, and Beneatha live in the same house, their dreams are all different from each other.
Second there is more detail in the book than the movie. Well, I think that more detail is better because the more you know the better you understand the movie or
The movie can not always be exactly like the book for various reasons; producers do not find talented actors that resemble the character, directors may want to make their own interpretation of the book or the copyright laws simply restrict the director and producers to follow the book word for word. The movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was very close to the book, but Harry’s character was not due to the physical appearance of the actor and the actor’s portrayal of the
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.
Of the many changes made between the book and the movie, most were made to keep the audience interested in the story. Most people who watch TV don’t have a long attention span. Executives at NBC didn’t want to spend millions to produce a movie and then have nobody watch it. The screenwriters had to throw in some clever plot twists to keep people interested. Another reason the movie was different from the book was the material in the book was a little too racy for network TV. Take the ending, for example, nobody wants to see a grown man hang himself. This was a reason the producers had to change some material in the movie.