Zora Neale Hurston would have been disappointed if she still lived due to the fact that Oprah has remade her book and made it her own version which differed from Zora’s novel. Janie Crawford in the movie Their Eyes Were Watching God and Janie in the novel Their Eyes Were Watching God differed tremendously in character. While reading the novel everyone would have read that Janie a young mixed female who did not come from much money, she never met her parents and Janie tries really hard to find herself even through some of the obstacles she faces. Janie in the book never like she equaled to the men she married because she already knew she was not above or better in any way . That was really the only time Janie really said something that was disrespectful and out of the way.
Scarlett was sixteen years old at the beginning of the book but portrayed to be older in the movie. In an effort to help the reader understand Scarlett’s personality and determination, the book gives a lot of background about her family, which is not included in the movie version. In addition to a difference in the depiction of the characters, there were also characters that were completely excluded from the movie version. For example, in the book Scarlett had three children, but in the movie she only had one child. The children are significant in that they give the reader an insight into Scarlett’s terrible parenting skills and make her character even more unlikeable.
The whole movie is her struggle to save Tara and get her true love, Ashley. I don’t find enough time to read as much as I would like to. There are many movies that I have seen that I have not been able to read the books of. I don’t always like the movie as well as the book, but in this case, Gone with the Wind in both book and movie are amazing and one of the best written classic of all time. .
Another flaw I found was the movie created a romance between Fiona and Jonas. The book never had this romance because in the book Jonas was only eleven or twelve years old, where as in the movie he made more to the age of seventeen or eighteen. I would recommend this movie to my family and friends. I would recommend The Giver because it is not like the other science fiction movies out right now. It has a realistic plot unlike the other movies that have killing games and different sanctions.
One popular cultural myth about the mentally ill is the archetype of the "Sexy Crazy Girl", which we've seen in movies, comic books, and music. Losing your grip with reality is not a glamorous subject, but that's not what you get from Girl, Interrupted. It is apparent that all the girls in the movie had some type of dysfunctional personality, and bad things happen to some of them, but it just did not seem realistic. First off, most of the patients prtrayed were young, which made the care facility look like a youth home rather than a mental institution. but only the main (well known) stars, (Jolie and Ryder) were focal piont.
White Oleander: Book vs. Movie Like with most books that are made into movies, this was definitely a disappointment. I have always found that books can tell much better stories than what you see on screen, this was no different. The movie easily cut out very important parts of the story. The beginning of the book is so important because you really get the feel for the weird mother-daughter relationship between Astrid and her Mother. In the movie you only get to see a small portion of how Astrid’s Mother treats her.
The book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone differs from the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in many ways. Most of these differences include characters and scenes. The two ways to discover this Harry Potter adventure are to either read the book or watch the movie. In fact, a person would want to read the book if they wanted the entire perception of the story and all of the information inside; whereas, a person would want to watch the movie if they wanted a rough sketch of the story. The two have dissimilarities but the person choosing to read the book or watch the movie is in charge of what they want to have.
When I was reading the book I simulated the character Blanche as deceptive, shrilly and ultimately the antagonist of the play. I didn't notice it at first but throughout the play I started to enjoy Blanche’s character. Vivien Leigh brought life and depth to a worn out role. She turned the whiny helpless damsel in distress into something destructively beautiful in the film. I think that the film definitely helped me understand to what extent Blanche’s problems were real.
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.
I think it is safe to say that it is more common to hear “the book is much better than the movie” than the other way around. I like to read a good book and I love a good movie. If you consider all the failed attempts to convert great books into great movies, it is obvious that the task of transforming the books' story to a movie is not quite easy. With books, we can enter the minds of our characters in a way that we just cannot do in the audio-visual medium of film. We create the visuals with our imagination in books, but a good movie brings those visuals to life.