A movie, even when it's good, doesn't often convey the feeling of the book it's based on. But in this case screenwriter Horton Foote treated the Harper Lee novel - about a Depression-era Alabama lawyer and his two children - with love and respect, and the director successfully evoked the novel's sense of childhood mystery and tenderness." (Dashiell) The same characters were the same heroes and the same characters were killed so the movie still resembles the book yet the directors choose to change some ideas around causing a different perspective while still maintaining the same morals. Some minor differences between the movie and the book include the book being much more descriptive and easier to understand where as the movie is harder to understand due to the fact that there isn't any narration. The book also has more suspense while the movie moves too fast and cuts out scenes.
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.
Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. Slaughterhouse-Five. New York: Delacorte Press, 1994. Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. The Sirens of Titan. New York: Dell, 1974.
I was extremely surprised by the way in which Hill's movie managed to successfully portray the ideas of the novel which I believed would be nearly impossible to visualize on screen. I had a hard time imagining how it would be possible to show abstract topics such as "being unstuck in time" on a movie screen. However, I came away extremely impressed with the way that Billy managed to travel around different points in his life as seamlessly as he did in the novel. Throughout the novel I actually had a harder time following Billy's travel through time. I came away surprised by this as I imagined it to be much tougher to follow in 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.
Authors and movie producers often have different ideas about how to portray a subject, in this case, the beloved story of The Giver. When you compare the two versions of The Giver, the novel and the movie, you will find very apparent and important differences not only in the plot, but in the characters and setting as well. When reading a novel, you visualize the perfect setting, trying to recreate that perfect setting as a director can be a strenuous and difficult task. To begin, the members of the community, both in the novel and movie,
Surprisingly I was exceptionally impressed in the way Hill's movie succeeded in depicting the concept of the novel which I thought would be almost impossible to translate on to a movie screen. I found it difficult to envision how Hill would be able to display abstract topics such as "being unstuck in time" (Vonnegut) on the big screen. However, I was relatively impressed by the way Billy was able to travel around seamlessly to different points in his life just as he did in Kurt Vonnegut's novel. At times throughout Slaughter-house Five I found it rather challenging to follow Billy through all his time traveling. I was happily surprised that this was not the case for Hill's movie adaptation; for I had imagined that it would be much more difficult to follow in the movie as it was in the book.
The character plays a huge part in the second book, as one of the leaders of the faction less, but in the movie, he was not sent to the faction less. This part, was the part I was looking forward to the most in the movie, I was at the edge of my seat when the part of the movie correlated with the book, but it never happened. This problem is... ... middle of paper ... ...the shows or movies themselves leave me on the verge of hating the series altogether. I realize that the show shouldn't be exactly as the book, word by word, however, having it so that things can be expected easily, or having it so that key factors in the book were left out in the show or movie, is something I cannot fathom. Everywhere I go, everyone I talk to that has the same reading interests as me, they all agree that the show or movie made out of the stories are not nearly as good as the stories themselves.
As the case with most “Novel to Movie” adaptations, screenwriters for films will make minor, and sometimes drastic, adjustments to the original text in order to increase drama and to reach modern audiences. Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 film interpretation of The Great Gatsby followed the 1925 classic great plot quite accurately, with minor deviations. However, Luhrmann made some notable differences to the characters and settings of The Great Gatsby in order for the story to relate to the current generation and to intensity the plot The novel’s main protagonist, Nick Carraway, came from a sophisticated family; however, they didn’t have enough money to be labeled as “Old Money”. Still, in the book, Nick was more stiff-necked and at times, pretentious than his film counterpart. He shows his pretentious ways when he constantly refers to blacks as “Negroes”.