I have seen Mary Poppins once; however, it was very long ago, so I am not very familiar with it. I remember bits and pieces; I can sing the songs but I can’t truly recall the whole story. Nonetheless, I am familiar enough to be shocked at how different the movie is from Travers’ original work.
Right off the bat, I couldn’t believe it took Travers 20 years to agree to Walt Disney turning her book into a movie. Knowing Walt Disney’s success, I can’t imagine having the guts to say no to him. However, it is clear that it became a money issue, and she was left with no other choice but to give in. I respect her resistance because this film portrayed how important this story was to her life. She mentioned time after time that these characters were
…show more content…
The most shocking information I found was that after the premiere, Travers and Disney fought for the rest of her life, and long after, to make sure this never happened again to her writing. In fact, she doubted her ability to ever write again because she was so disappointed and depressed with the Disney adaptation of her work. One of my favorite books and movies is Charlotte’s Web. This story is so beautiful and I think the film adaptation definitely gave it justice, which as very difficult to do. The animation was extremely well done and not overly cheesy. The story itself never gets old, and the movie was nothing short of extraordinary. The visual component definitely lived up to my expectations. On the other hand, nothing was more disappointing that the Twilight series made into films. These books were remarkable, but when turned into a film, a complete shame. They became a punching bag for everyone to destroy. I was always criticized for reading the books because of how bad the movies were; however, the books were so well written. I think the biggest mistake was the casting; nonetheless, the films were torn to pieces. Those books, in my opinion, did not need a visual component. After reading four extensively long books, you become attached to the visuals you have created and unfortunately, the film visuals just did not live up to my expectations. Saving Mr. Banks, on the other hand, was a great film. I think it is beneficial to see a ‘behind the scenes’ look at one of the most treasured and successful movies in
I think that most of the event in the movie were not in the same order that Jeannette had wrote them. After reading the book I had a different picture in mind of how each character would look and it threw me off for the rest of the movie. I did like the fact that I could see what was happening and not just imagine things in my head that I thought was happening, as I was watching the movie I was seeing the same thing everyone else was and not just what I was picturing while reading the
The book had a lot of thought put into it by the author and it appeals to many audiences of different ages. The book put me on the edge of my seat throughout the whole book, and it was one of those books that you never want to put down. The way the author wrote it had quite a suspenseful, eerie, dramatic feel to it and that is what made the book so great, on top of the plot. The plot of the book was also very well thought out and put together, and I enjoyed reading it. Although the movie was great, I don’t think that it did the book enough justice. There were so many great aspects of the book that they left out, that would’ve made the movie just that much better. They should have put in some of the missing scenes and still portrayed the characters the same as they were in the book. However, I think that it would be hard to create the same feel as Ray Bradbury did in writing the book. It was the way that he connected with his audience that made the book appealing. Both the book and the movie were fantastic ways of portraying the story. If they had kept all of the scenes and properties of characters as they did in the book, the movie would have appealed to me more. But, the movie version of the story could appeal to others more than the book
All in all, it was a pleasure reading the novel and watching the film. They were distinctive in the manner how they portrayed the story but they were unique since they managed to get the idea of the story across in two disparate ways. My feelings for the story have overgrown because it is such an attractive and innovative piece of writing, with a glowing sense of grief and helplessness and reality, which force the reader to involve with the hauntings of Arthur.
Many films are criticized to be way different from the book and therefore not as good. The movie Of Mice and Men, however, is very well done and very similar to the book. In this movie were elements that created mood and atmosphere, elements that made the movie good, and elements/ things that could have been improved in order to reflect the novel better.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
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.
The movie lacks a lot of insight onto the other characters in the book, it mostly focuses on Ponyboy. For example, in the movie there was a lack of detail on characters such as Darry and Sodapop even Dally. Dally was a major character in the book but his death in the movie seemed a bit minor because there wasn’t much detail for viewers to get attached to his character. I felt as if his death was glazed over and easily forgotten in the movie while in the book it was described for at least two pages.
His challenge would be to create a film with the knowledge that the audience would have read the book, and to not disappoint them with his interpretation. The production was troubled, with Capra requiring many reshoots and going way over budget (the production was reported to
Imagine if your work was to be published, but the publishers required you to change even the most minute detail to fit their need. This work would be unrecognizable, not at all what you wanted to convey with your story. This is essentially what happens with every movie adaptation of a popular novel, and readers are always enraged. One such case is The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak, which was unnecessarily changed. The lack of many important details in the movie adaptation of The Book Thief shows how obvious it is that movies must stay true to the book for full effect.
The decision of the screenwriter and director to cut out what I felt were several story arcs and scenes from the novel was very disappointing. For example, in the movie there is no mention of Beth's shyness, or of her overcoming that shyness to become friends with Mr. Lawrence. The scene in the novel where she gathers her courage to walk over to his house and thank him for giving her his piano is one of the most defining moments for Beth. Overall I found Beth and Mr. Lawrence to both be sadly underdeveloped in the movie. Mr. Lawrence appears in only three scenes, while many of Beth's key moments also vanished. Jo's wonderful tomboyish nature is also severely tone-down for this version. She does not say "Christopher Columbus"; nor any of her other slang words. We never see the scene where she longs to go be a soldier fighting in the war and wishes she were a man. They transformed the character of Meg from someone who longs for finer things and tends to be snobbish into the wise older sister who does not care about such things. Lacking is the wonderful moment when she realizes that she does not care about Mr. Brook's poverty as she staunchly defends her love of him against Aunt March. While Amy's quest for a perfect nose is mentioned twice, there is never a scene showing some of her efforts such as her wearing the clothespin on it at night to make is straight, nor do we get enjoy watching her artistic endeavors such as her attempts to make a plaster cast of her foot.
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.
The debate over the good and bad aspects of Disney movies has been going on for years. It has become a part of pop culture in a way never expected through things such as YouTube videos and meme’s. While looking at multiple Disney movies may give a wider range of example of both the good and the bad in Disney movies, to help depict the effects the movies actually have on kids it is most beneficial to study just one movie. Zia’s essay argues that Disney movies have a good influence on children by teaching them good life morals. However, one of her examples, Mulan, is not an example of achievement through hard work like Zia explains, but rather a change made through magic, and example of the horrible historical inaccuracies made in Disney movies and the lack of parental respect that they teach children.
The Main Street station, is the curtains to a large production as if the Magic Kingdom was a theater. As I wander beneath the archway, I notice that above the arch is a plaque that reads: “Here you leave today and enter the world of yesterday, tomorrow, and fantasy”. As I continue to stroll through the passage on the way to Main Street, there are posters of “upcoming attractions” that line the walls on both sides. I then step into Main Street U.S.A. and begin to hear the Victorian style orchestra playing over the speakers. I notice some Disney pals in Town Square greeting guests as if they were old friends. Then I begin to travel further down the street, and the smell of the caramel apples, chocolate chip cookies, and other sweets walk out of the open doors of the bakery and into the street. At the end of this turn of the century town, sits the one hundred eightyninefoottall, Cinderella Castle. This moment is a pivotal moment in any Disney vacation, because the castle is well known to millions. I get
The man, the dreamer, the artist, the creator, producer, the pioneer, and the developer; Walt Disney accomplished building his own empire along with his legacy that continues to grow every day. Every individual has a story about what drives them to be the person they are today and will be tomorrow. Personally, I love his impressive movies and alluring theme parks. Walt Disney has played an integral part of my family’s life. In fact, my daughter became engaged at the end of Main Street, in a fairy-tale moment in front of the enchanted Cinderella’s Castle, in the Magic Kingdom theme park for her birthday over the holidays. Just about everyone has some knowledge of Walt Disney’s incredible endeavors. However, how many people can say that they have knowledge of the man Disney was before creating Mickey Mouse and what follows?
Although the movie and the book have some similar things they are rather different. This is to shorten the film and attract more of an audience to see the film. By telling the story in Henry’s point of view chronologically rather than in different points of view in a random sequence, makes the story much more understandable. Making Clare more histrionic makes the film more dramatic, bring in more viewers. Lastly, the changes in the plot make the film less violent, shorter, and understandable. Both the book and movie were well done, and it makes sense why they did so well. They were interesting and captivating.