... ... middle of paper ... ... To say both the book and the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird were closely related would be an understatement. Though neither was better or worse, the movie and the book were completely different. Minor differences between the movie and the book include one being easy to read due to narration, and one moving too fast causing the story to be rather predictable. Major differences that changed the whole viewpoint of the story consist of missing characters and characters perceived differently, important scenes left out, and the different was the book and the movie represent the characters and relationships. Overall, the book represents two children trying to enjoy their childhood while becoming good people in the process and the movie is based around a wrongful trial of a black man in the South.
One difference was the way Tom’s arms looked. His arm looked perfectly fine in the movie, but in the novel it supposedly was shorter than the other. Looking at both versions of To Kill a Mockingbird. My favorite version is the the novel. It gives out more meaning to the theme than the movie did.
Also in Kesey’s novel, there is a clear distinction between Acutes and Chronics and their condition that was being treated. However in the movie version, the difference was unnoticeable, and made me forget about the distinction in general. The plot that was chosen by Forman seemed to be random scenes put together, and overall, a “cheap” recreation of the plot. Disregarding the details and scenes that were missed, Forman did a very nice job. However, did it capture the essence and importance?
There are the lawyers who graduated from law school, passed the Bar Exam, and are licensed to practice law in the state, but seem to have no idea how to defend a client in a criminal case at trial due to lack of experience. Some lawyers lose sight of maintaining post-conviction alternative routes for their customers. Another source agrees quotes "The reality is that prosecutorial misconduct is at least as serious a problem at the local level, where prosecutors are less well-trained" (Lindorff). Finding an experienced lawyer who is all for the client is not as easy as it seems, but they do
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.
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.
While Luhrmann’s movie adaptation just jumps out to the viewers with 3 dimensional effects. It was a valiant effort by Baz Luhrmann, but the use of 3-D effect in this movie was unnecessary, the extravagant party scenes came out repetitive and shallow. The peculiar and atypical rhetorical choices in this movie adaptation were essentially used just because Luhrmann is drawn to the idea of “modernizing” the novel, to interpret ideas and theme to younger audiences in an applicable settings, while also incorporating passage from an older era. Luhrmann had failed to appeal
The basic book plot was followed except for a few scene changes, like when the director left out that one of the boys goes missing. Also, almost all of the characters who were mentioned could be seen in the movie. However, the book and the movie differ in quite a few ways. Overall, the 1963 movie is less confusing and much less difficult to understand than Golding’s book. One of the reasons for this thesis is that the audio and video aspects of the movie make the story much less confusing.
If Grisham decided only to write about the technical aspects of law surrounding a case, then his following of viewers would probably be much smaller then it is today. Matt Zoller Seitz, an author who wrote an essay that reaffirms this point, by claiming that the contemporary viewers are attracted to Grisham’s work because of his real life like stories surrounding the main characters, like the lawyer, Mitch McDeere, in The Firm. John Grisham’s leading character in this novel is Mitch McDeere, he is the center of the plot. Grisham uses supporting characters such as Mitch’s wife, and other partners in the law firm, that brings life to Mitch McDeere. Grisham creates conflict between these characters and Mitch to form the drama of the plot and find a resolution to the problems that...
In the film, the director also left out such scenes and details to jump around between major action scenes. Philip Nel stated in “Bewitched, bothered, and bored: Harry Potter, the Movie” that, “The accumulation of minor details can create a markedly different experience between a book and a film, which may explain why my students who read the novel first seemed to be so critical of the film. The movie looks like the places in the book but it doesn 't "feel" like them because these little details accumulate (Nel)”. It is these missing little details that catch us off guard when watch a film based off a book; we expect those little details to be in the movie. Another example would be that the friendship between Harry, Ron, and Hermione did not seem as fluid as it was in the books.