Hello my name is and like most people I get bored sometimes, not because of a lack of ideas but because of a lack of money. But what if money wasn't a factor and you could do and have done everything within the rules that worldly possessions can afford you? Whoever this person is, they most undoubtedly would not gain the same pleasure from activities that you or I would. This is the main theme of the remake of the 1968 movie The Thomas Crown Affair. The original Thomas Crown Affair was written by Alan Trustman and directed by Norman Jewison who also did In the heat of the night and the 2003 movie The Statement. It starred Steve McQueen as the Financer, Thomas Crown, and Faye Dunaway as an insurance investigator counterpart to Crown, Viki Anderson. In 1999 the original was rewritten by Leslie Dixon and Kurt Wimmer, and was directed by John McTiernan who also did the first two Last Action Hero. It stared Pierce Brosnan as Crown and Rene Russo as Catherine Banning, the remakes version of Viki Anderson. On top of the changing of most the characters names, McTiernan's version has many differences from the original.
The first major difference I noticed was in the cinematography. In the original, Jewison used techniques that were new to the industry at the time. He used a split screen technique to enhance the action scenes by allowing for more than one point of view, giving the movie more suspense. However, in the remake, McTiernan chose not to use this technique or even any other that is newer to film making. Mctiernan's makes it easier for the viewer to follow the plot and focus in on what is going on in the movie. In doing this, the remake loses some of the intensity in it's action and suspense scenes.
Along the same lines, the remake makes it easier for the viewer to know more about what is going on by showing more of both sides of the story than the original. There is more mystery in the original because although Jewison gives the viewer all the pieces to the puzzle, he makes them put the story together themselves. McTiernan's version "connects the dots" for the viewer thus allowing them to better understand what is going on.
McTiernan did this to make the film more viewer accessible because this was the film audience of the time.
Many changes are displayed in the film adapted from the playwright. One of these main changes would be the ending of the story.
These changes in the film make the plot more comprehendible to the viewer, and overall make the film more realistic to the viewer than the play does for the
The heroes, heroines and villains portrayed in the two versions of the film were drawn quite differently.
better mood and plot details which made it much more dramatic and by far a
There were many differences among the two stories, among these differences were setting, weapons, the classic “Balcony Scene,” other new adoptions to the film, the concentration on the main characters of Romeo and Juliet, and the implementation of imagery to the storyline. First, the setting of the story is probably one of the biggest differences between the two stories. The original version of the tale is set in Verona, Italy. The newer version is set in a fictitious Verona Beach, California, a city with the appearance of modern day Los Angeles after a riot. The new environment gives familiarity to the viewer, allowing them to relate to the situation at hand, bringing it to a modern time. Another change to the story was the weapons used within the story. The original story used daggers as weapons whereas the newer version uses guns (appropriately titled sword, dagger, etc.). The famed “Balcony Scene,” where Romeo and Juliet avow their love to each other was dramatically changed in many aspects. In the original version, Juliet appears on the balcony and utters the famous words “O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?” (Shakespeare 45) Juliet then goes into the speech about names, asking Romeo to deny his fathers name. Romeo is hiding in the shadows below and hears the words of Juliet. After hearing Juliet’s speech Romeo steps into the light. Romeo and Juliet profess their love for each other and they plan to get married in secrecy.
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
There are some more minor changes that were made in the movie. For example, in the movie, they left out the lady in church who wears the big, fancy hats and makes one for Lily. Another minor detail that was changed was the Mary Day. It was a large part in the big because it helped June and August cope with May's death and move on.
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
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
The differences that were made from the short story create a more detailed plot for the movie. There were many subtle changes that also made drastic changes to the movie for example, the man at the desk. In the movie the man at the desk did not talk much however, in the short story the man played a big part to the plot of the short story. At the beginning of the short story the man explains how Keith was elected for president instead of deutscher but after the incident the man reveals the change in history by talking about how deutscher was elected. Another important difference from the short story and the movie is the one who caused the change in history. In the short story Eckles is the one who stepped on the butterfly however in the movie Middleton is the one who steps on the butterfly. A key difference in the movie compared to
and the film was made in 1994. It was much more surrealistic because this version of the film was based on a young boy's dream. Setting The biggest difference between the two film is the setting and place.
From a personal standpoint, the 1956 version was better because it had more details and it was more modern. The major difference between the movies is the cause of Louis Bernard’s death, the characters’ names moving around, the mothers’ actions, and the revealing of the kid nappers. Louis Bernard was a man of many secrets and he also was the person who made the plots in both movies. He invited the Lawrence family to eat dinner with him and go dancing.
...the 2012 film. And unless you are paying close attention you would completely miss Myrtle Wilson played by Karen Black in the 1974 version and Isla Fisher in the 2013 version besides the party scene in the apartment and her getting killed she is barely noticeable. Jason Clarke played a less wimpy version of George Wilson and he was abusive towards Myrtle. And looked capable of murder and if it wasn’t for the book he would probably flee instead of killing himself. Scott Wilson looked like a sad puppy throughout the movie and very pitiful and it seemed as if Myrtle was abusive towards him. He looked incapable of murder but also as if he would snap at any moment and would commit murder. In the end actors in the 2013 film I would say showed a lot more emotion through and through instead of concealing it and that is something that I enjoyed more than the 1974 version.
The movie was similar to the book (Vis versa) in very many ways first they wanted 2 grand in the story similar to the movie. Second they both lowered the original price to 1500$ and third they both paid 250$ for the return of the boy red chief.
Of the many changes made between the book and the movie, most were made to keep the audience interested in the story. Most people who watch TV don’t have a long attention span. Executives at NBC didn’t want to spend millions to produce a movie and then have nobody watch it. The screenwriters had to throw in some clever plot twists to keep people interested. Another reason the movie was different from the book was the material in the book was a little too racy for network TV. Take the ending, for example, nobody wants to see a grown man hang himself. This was a reason the producers had to change some material in the movie.