“It’s Kind of a Funny Story”: Movie Novel Comparison The book and the movie share practically the same plot but the movie adaptation changes a lot about the characters and the backstory. “It’s Kind of a Funny Story” is based off of the author’s, Ned Vizzini, actual five day experience in a mental hospital which gives us a better feel for what these types of facilities are like. Both the movie and book captured what it is like to live with depression and the things that come along with it. The differences from book to movie were mostly minor which resulted in a different vibe to the movie. In both movie and book, our main character, Craig Gilner is plagued with severe depression causing him to not eat, be mostly antisocial, and have thoughts of suicide. Because of these thoughts, Craig calls a hotline rather than acting on them and checks himself …show more content…
Ever since he was a child, he has enjoyed drawing maps because he could make them any way that he wanted; it gave him a sort of freedom. While in the mental hospital Craig is told to find some happiness, so he goes back to one of his first loves, art. He creates intricate maps of the different residents brains. In the movie, this part of the story is changed. He only creates regular maps with paints and he doesn't make them based off of what the residents are like. This part of the story is important and shouldn't have been changed because this is when Craig really started to see the shift that he talks about. He started to feel kind of normal again. All in all, the book was, by far, much better than the movie. This is because the book can give us a better view of what Craig is thinking and feeling because he is our narrator. It is easier to see what is going on in his head and why he is doing what he is doing. The few changes that the screenwriters made didn't influence the story much but it would have been much better if they kept it the
Have you ever read a book and then watched the movie and saw many differences? Well you can also find lots of similarities. In the book “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the movie “Tom and Huck” there are many similarities and differences having to do with the characters personalities, the setting, the characters relationships with one another and the events that take place.
There are few similarities between the book and the movie. Usually most movies are similar to
It was almost identical to the book. The majority of the dialogue was the same, the characters were portrayed perfectly, the scenes all looked like they were described in the book, and the plot had no major changes. As someone who had read the book before the movie was even announced, I was pleased in the way that the cast and crew brought this story to life. Even if Paper Towns wasn’t an adaption of a book, it was still an amazing onscreen story. The movie all flowed, the soundtrack really enhanced the plot, and there were characters that made you feel as if you personally knew them. This movie was great, whether you look at it from the view of someone who read the book and wanted it all to be exactly like you imagined, or if you’re someone who didn’t even know it was a book and just thought the story seemed
First of all in the beginning of the movie it has Maniac Magee at his parent’s funeral and he runs away straight to Two Mills. In the book Maniac is with his relatives and he can’t stand the fighting between his aunt and his uncle so he runs to Two-Mills. I like this part of the book better because I think the situation of why he runs away is more interesting. Another set of plot events in the book that are different are the three plot events that Maniac goes through when he first comes to Two-Mills. In the movie the same three plot events that are at the beginning of the book are distributed all throughout the movie. I like this about the book better because when the movie puts the three plot events in there are terrible
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
In the movie, they missed things or changed parts, but they also quoted the book quiet a lot and make the story more a like. Most of the most important parts were in the movie. They missed one of the camps that Corrie was sent to and the didn’t show much of the 100th year party of the watch shop besides a picture. I liked the book way more than the movie because the book had more detail and made you understand what that part of WWII was like more than the movie does. In the book Corrie is learning how to have more faith and trust in God more but in the movie, she had a lot of faith the whole time and she didn’t struggle with that as much. I enjoyed reading about that because it made me feel like I’m not the only one that struggles.
Both the movie and the book are basically based on family and relationships. The characters in the movie and the book, For example Einar, jean, Griff, and Lila and her parents all deal with loss of a family member.
I like the reading book better than watching the movie because there are more facts in the book than the movie. Maybe I just like reading books better than watching movies. That’s my opinion. What’s yours (if you’ve read the book and seen the movie)?
Of course the film could not add all these things that I feel make it weaker than the book. It would have become a short television series or something like that if all these things were added. The story had a very long list of characters and became very involved at some points, but I think this made the book interesting to more than one audience. Some parts of Toby’s life were very comical and fun, some parts left you on the edge of your seat, making you wander why he did some of the more consequential things that he did.
...rtrayed differently in the movie. Lennie is shown as being very mentally challenged, whereas in the book he is just a little slow and has a mind of a young child. Although some changes are made in the movie to make it flow better, it is still based on the same story as the book. The movie has the same plot line and characters, and some of the scenes are told in the exact same way as they are in the novel. As well, the movie and the book give out the same themes. This story is about how all the people in the Great Depression were trying to escape their unhappy, lonely lives, but weren’t capable of doing so. The movie stays very true to the book even though some things are removed or added. Everything that is added or changed still works very well and captures the film perfectly.
One thing that can make a book good is characters. In the book, there were many more animals in the farm. The movie did not show many animals except for the main animals. Even thought this is a small difference, it can be noticeable. In the book, Mollie was a character.
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
The book, "Being There," is about a man named Chance, who is forced to move out of the house he lived in his whole life and his experience in the outside world. Based on the success of the book, the movie, "Being There," was made. The author of the book, Jerzy Kosinski, also wrote the screenplay for the movie. I think the major difference between the book and the movie is that in the book, we get to read what Chance is feeling and thinking, but in the movie, we only get to see his actions.
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.