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.
Have you ever read an amazing book only to be stuck with an awful movie based off of it? Watching a movie based off of a book is amazing, that is, if you haven't read the book. Reading the book that the movie is based off of is much better than the movie itself, imagining the words into action from a book gives one much more of a thrill than in the movie. The movie itself, is quite a disappointment. The book Divergent for example, spoiler alert, the book was absolutely amazing in all ways for those who like the kind of book that gives you thrills and has a disgustingly amazing plot twist, all set in a post-apocalyptic setting.
Charles Portis’s famous novel True grit published in 1968 was the basis of both the 1969 and the 2010 movie. The 2010 movie by the Coen Brothers covers a lot of stuff from the book, but I think they made the character Mattie a lot different then the book. In the book Mattie was a 14 teen year old girl who wasn't afraid of anything, and was not afraid to take revenge on her fathers killer Tom Chaney. Some of events in the movie made her look tough but the actor was too nice and cute to play Mattie. They also made her way more emotional than in the book.
Although this was the dream of the Founding Fathers, it failed to achieve its peak when slavery came into argument. By the 1850’s the Constitution’s purpose had fell short of its original image, and the government struggled to resolve all the issues including the failure to devise an effective way to decide whether slavery would exist within a new state, the discontent of slaves and free blacks in relation to the Fugitive Slave Acts, and the thwarting of secession within the South. When the controversies could no longer be contained, the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter. Indeed, the topic of slavery had torn apart the nation; the United States of America was anything but “united”.
Another flaw I found was the movie created a romance between Fiona and Jonas. The book never had this romance because in the book Jonas was only eleven or twelve years old, where as in the movie he made more to the age of seventeen or eighteen. I would recommend this movie to my family and friends. I would recommend The Giver because it is not like the other science fiction movies out right now. It has a realistic plot unlike the other movies that have killing games and different sanctions.
After reading the novel and watching the movie, I also feel the movie version did not accurately renovate the original novel. With various important scenes missing, confusion about the main character, and an indistinct recreation of the plot, Forman did not precisely revive the authentic purpose into his film. Because films are usually interpreted a bit differently than novels, Forman knew that Kesey’s story had to be edited and changed to fit a new format, as well as updated to be relevant 13 years later; he decided to delete and tweak plenty of scenes from the novel. In Kesey’s story, Maxwell Taber, a patient in the ward, has already been released before Randle McMurphy, the protagonist, has been admitted into the hospital; but he was present throughout most of the movie. Not to mention, Charles Cheswick, the first patient to support McMurphy’s future rebellions, drowns in the hospital pool about halfway through the novel; he never dies in the movie version.
The book gained multiple rewards later on. The movie was made almost twenty years later in 1983. The movie shows fans a visual representation of the book, The Outsiders. The Outsiders book is different from the movie because the book shows Ponyboy’s thoughts, the movie doesn’t show much of what happens to Ponyboy after Dally’s death, and doesn’t show movie-watchers much of Johnny’s backstory. The book has some things it only has, which supports the idea that the book and movie
Even tho many people may consider the book to be the better version of The Crucible their reasons do not compare to the reasons I have written to prove that the movie is the best version. The movie did a much better version of giving us more details and more personality out of the characters such as John Proctor. In the book, John Proctor was a dry and dull character but in the movie, he is incredibly influential.
The theme of this movie is that even though people live under the rules of a Capitol, does not mean that their lives can be controlled completely by the Capitol because sometimes they are smarter than the people above them. The Hunger Games is a very good example of a drama. Even though drama is not part of the genre classification of this movie, this movie still has a lot of elements of drama. The Hunger Games is a prime example that almost any movie could be a drama. Since this movie and the book is part of a trilogy, that means that the rest of the books and movies are also dramas.
Scott Fitzgerald original version of the novel. The movie adaptation lacked the emotional connection with the viewers. Baz Luhrmann focused more on creating a visual excitement and very little else. The texts in Fitzgerald’s novel jumps out to readers as they are reading, the novel is passionate, meaningful and magnificently written. While Luhrmann’s movie adaptation just jumps out to the viewers with 3 dimensional effects.