... ... 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.
It is because of where he comes from that Atticus manages to be such an even and sound voice of reason in such tumultuous times. Without Aunt Alexandra to represent this background one sees Atticus as a "too good to be true" character. ------------------------------- To Kill A Mockingbird - Differences between Movie and Book There are usually differences in two different versions of something. This can often be seen when a book is made into a movie. There are many similarities and differences in the book and movie versions of To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
The children made expeditions to the Radley house to look in the window just so they could catch a glimpse of Boo Radley. I believe this captivation was important to the story line because it was the main foundation of the children's imagination. A big part of the story was imagining Boo to be some kind of freak that came out at night to eat cats and squirrels. An additional similarity between the book and movie is the respect showed to Atticus by the African American community of Maycomb. They respected him for his courage, which by his definition meant, "It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.
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.
While Vonnegut's literary style is very noticeable in Slaughterhouse-Five, the novel as a whole differs from the majority of his other works because it is personal with an interesting point of view techniq... ... middle of paper ... ...kle every time I watch that film, because it is so harmonious with what I felt when I wrote the book" (Film Comment 41). Whether or not someone who has not read the novel could get some meaning from the film is hard to decide, but if one considers that it would take just about as long to watch the movie as it would to read the book, the decision should be obvious. Works Cited Bianculli, David. "A Kurt Post-mortem on the Generally Eclectic Theatre." Film Comment Nov.-Dec. 1985: 41-44.
Without ... ... middle of paper ... ...e book, Elizabeth is depicted as being sweet and intelligent, while in the book, she was depicted as being sometimes rude. A big difference between the book and the movie is that in the book, Darcy and Elizabeth were always surrounded by others, but in the movie, they could be found being by themselves a lot. This difference could be very pivotal to the meaning of the book. In the movie and book Pride and Prejudice, there are differences from the movie and the book. Some of the differences between the movie and the novel can be a direct cause of Joe Wright having his own opinions in regards to how he believes the message should be depicted.
I have watched the movie and read the book too. I have found there are many things in the movie that was similar to the book, however there are many important scenes that is not included in the movie. I strongly believed that the movie could have been better if they have looked at the small important aspects of the books. There are many similarities and differences between movie and the book. There are many similarities between book and the movie.
It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on. I enjoyed The Big Sleep by Howard Hawks, but can still recognize and appreciate the differences between it and Chandler's masterful novel. It is an objective appreciation of the two works which forms the foundation a good paper. One must look at the book as a distinct unit, look at the film as a distinct unit, and then (and only then) use one to compare/contrast the other in a critique. The film, after all, is not an extension of the novel&endash;as some would like to argue&endash;but an independent entity that can be constructed however the artist (Hawks in this case) wants.
Have you ever liked a movie more than the book it was based on? A book being made into a movie is sometimes stressful when it could be a total hit or a total flop. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer book by Mark Twain was a captivating book with details that molded well together. A movie was made in 1938 off of the book and I favored it over the book. The movie did leave me unsatisfied with its loss of an important scene that can cause confusion.
The similarites the film keeps are pivotal to the novel, the style of Saunière death, the lead characters and their personalities and the excitement of discovering the secret of the Holy Grail all stay the same, but the movie ends with a different motivation for the plot. The “plot twist” ending leaves a bit of a sour taste, Saunière is no longer protecting his granddaughter and passing on their family history, instead he is defending and hiding Sophie solely for her “royal blood.” Ron Howard’s The Da Vinci Code is an acceptable, even enjoyable adaptation of Dan Browns novel, but just like in any film, some of the magic of the novel is lost when it is transferred into a different medium.