The Speckled Band by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was entertaining as a written story, but it was even more enjoyable as a film because the movie played out scenes that were only described by dialogue in the book, flushed out the murder plot in a clearer manner, and created more realistic and dynamic characters. Turning older literature into movies that available to the general public prevents them from falling by the way side as many story from the past have a tendency to
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.
In the 1936 written version of the classic, Scarlet O'Hara dislikes children, including her own two. The movie conveniently left this fact out due to it would mak... ... middle of paper ... ...the play a more contemporary setting. Not all adaptations have been a bust, though. Critics say that Nicholas Sparks' novel The Notebook possessed intensity that the book did not, making the movie far better in some minds. Warm Bodies as a film was able to convey feeling that could not be put in words.
The addition of supporting characters, such as Lisa, diminishes somewhat the loneliness of the short story character. The character in the short story has more in common with Humphrey Bogart’s Sam Spade than with Jimmy Stewart’s Jeff. That Hitchcock took a story written in a style similar to Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, and chose not to make a film noir detective story speaks much to Hitchcock’s purpose here. Rather than creating a conventional detective story, Hitchcock creates an everyman, whose injury prevents him from action. The impotence the character feels heightens the tension of the film, as well by forcing the viewers to identify with his frustration.
In the movie adaptation, Millen sympathizes and empathizes with Johnson something that is not well brought in the book. It is very easy to see from the movie that the two men are alike and perhaps as different from the other characters as they are alike. Millen is just as reluctant to go after Johnson as we are to see him go after Millen. The plot of the book has been significantly reworked for dramatic effect. The most obvious of these changes is the role that constable Millen plays.
Generally, movie adaptations of books are not exact replicas of the original. The reason is mainly that the original storyline needs to be modified in order to quench the audience's thirst for action, whereas those who read books usually enjoy the slow, steady build-up of a valuable plot which will never be replaced by movies. Moreover, books allow the reader’s imagination to roam free, but movies can offer a new and different perspective. The fictional novel The Sword in the Stone by T.H. White and its animated counterpart, also named The Sword in the Stone, by Disney are no exception.
The movie, for the most part, stayed true to the book of Exodus, but some detail and major plotline were different. The movie was good, but the added love story and power struggle made the movie a little off topic. The story itself, Moses being adopted, raised, sent away, and then came back and freed the people is the same, so Exodus is followed in a general way. Some detail is not, like some of the plagues are different (Plague seven was just hail, not hail on fire), and some characters are not existent in the Bible, but appear in the movie. The movie was very good and is one of the best Moses and Passover movies of all time.
But she could not feel it back, without the memories.” - The Giver, Lois Lowry. In the movie their relationship is much more intimate than it was portrayed in the novel, this majorly affects the plot. Despite the differences, a similarity between the novel and the book is that the main characters are the same. The movie included characters such as Asher, Jonas, Fiona, Gabe, Mom, Dad, Lilly, The Giver and The chief elder. Without these characters the storyline would be nothing like that of the novel.
A movie rarely does a book justice, the To Kill a Mockingbird movie truly brought the book to life. However, the book is still better than the movie. The book is far superior because, the movie deviates character development by leaving out certain events, the movie is missing key characters such as Aunt Alexandra, and some casting choices took away from certain characters. First of all, the movie left out specific events and characters, which deviated the story. The three summers in the book are condensed into a summer and a half.
As most everyone knows, there are differences between a book and it’s movie adaptation. This is applicable to the book and it’s movie counterpart To Kill a Mockingbird, as well. But aside from the differences, there are also similarities between these two. The similarities are quite apparent, the movie plot mainly follows the basic plot that the book took, leaving the viewer’s with a sense of accomplishment, as this is sometimes not achieved in the highest degree. Scout still has a brother, Jem.