The characters had been very much different. From the novel and to the movie, they had not even included the character under the name of Reuven. As well as, Rivka was introduced at the beginning instead of when they had met her at the camp in the novel. As well as, in the movie, the rabbi spoke out much more than in the novel. In the novel, the rabbi faded out of the novel as it went on. The plot from the novel and the movie was very different too. In the novel, the people caught escaping were shot, yet in the movie they were hung. In the movie, they had a Seder in the camp yet in the novel, they did not. As well as, in the movie, they had put pellets into the chamber to kill people, yet they didn't do that in the novel. They had other smaller details included that were different, yet they did not have any impact on the story, such as how they had to dig instead of doing their special jobs like in the…
I think, hopefully along with you, the reader that books are greater than the movie, especially in this case. For some extra details, here are some good mentions. The book, produced in 1886, had more evidence that Alan had committed the Appin Murder than the movie! Also, the plot and timing of character scenes were off. One example was when Davie asked the woman in the book where the House of Shaws was, in the movie it was a man! Also, in the book, the woman had hatred for the House of Shaws, when in the movie he had no hatred that would of made the movie slightly more…
Why is it that when a book gets it’s own movie that there are several differences between the book and the movie? Some people argue that the book is always better than the movie. There is a reason for this. Firstly, in most book to movie adaptations small details are changed or are just not included. Secondly, the movie often takes short cuts and doesn’t touch on certain aspects that were described in the book. Lastly, when reading a book you are free to make your own subtext and fill in the blanks with your imagination. The movie adaptations of books have always lacked the detail that's in the book, some things are completely cut from the movie to maintain a well paced story, and it fills in the gaps for us making the experience less unique.…
Ever read a book, and then seen the movie? The book is usually better right? That’s most likely because of the differences. The book is more descriptive most of the time. Events in the book are missing from the movie. Or the movie adds some in.…
The movie has some similar and different things than the book. The differences are more important than the similarities. .There are way more differences than similarities.The book is Better than the…
The novel was far more detailed and the eloquence of the author came into play, rather than the movie where it is different lines. So, hopefully you now have a deeper understanding of the difference between the book and the movie, and fully understand the similarities and differences between the two. After a deep analysis, the book still appears better than it’s movie counterpart, just like most other book/movie…
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone the book earned a number of awards, including a Booklist Editor’s Choice award, Publisher’s Weekly Best Book of 1998, and earning a top spot as both a New York Times and USA Today Bestseller. The movie itself earned many rewards, such as a Critics Choice Award for Best Live Action Family Film, and individual people on the cast and crew were also recognized, such as costume designer Judianna Makovsky, who won a Saturn Award for Best Costumes; Rupert Grint, who won a Satellite Special Achievement Award for Outstanding New Talent; and Emma Watson, who tied with Scarlett Johansson for a Young Artist Award for Best Performance in a Feature Film (Leading Young Actress). While the original audience for both the book and the film Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone may have been children, there is no denying that it has transcended that audience, and appeals to almost every audience. On a scale of one to five, with five meaning completely representative of the book and one meaning not representative at all, I would give this movie a rating of four. Having read the book first, the movie-watching experience was very enhanced. The book provides a more complete telling than the movie, and you are better able to understand what is going on in the characters’ heads. That is also why I prefer the book to the movie. Since they are not confined within the few hours of a movie, the author is better able to develop to develop the characters more fully, and consequently the characters are more dynamic and more…
In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the protagonist, Harry, is today's modern hero. The film of Harry Potter is the common tale of good vs. evil, with the good and evil in the story being completely obvious. Voldemort, Harry's adversary, intends to kill Harry because, as their prophecy, another element of mythology, foretold, "neither can live while the other survives." However, when good meets evil (Harry meets Voldemort) in the novel, good prevails both times; which is a very cliché concept.…
The novel is much better than the movie. The novel is more interesting than the movie as there was a lot of description, which was used in the right places. It was easier to read the novel. The description in the novel was very detailed which was gross but it is not as bad as seeing pigs getting slaughtered visually in the movie. It was cruel and horrendous when they killed the pig so badly. Although the novel and the movie had the same plot there were many differences in-between. A few major differences seen in the movie was the shattering of the conch, the captain/pilots presence and Ralph’s attitude towards Piggy. The movie had many things missing in it such as personality traits and some characters. Even though they had to make the movie shorter but they have taken out some of the most important things stated in the novel. These reasons made the novel more enjoyable than the movie. In the novel the author had stated various times that there were no adults at all, therefore the boys were alone and had to fend for themselves. Though in the movie there was an adult, the captain/pilot which didn’t really make sense as it was totally different in the novel. The way the movie presents the characters, meaning the way they look and talk has basically no resemblance to the novels apart from piggy, ralph and the twins. The hunters were more vicious and cruel in the movie than the novel which was very bad to watch. In the novel it looked like that piggy and Ralph had not known each other at all and Ralph mocked Piggy a lot although in the movie they were best friends and confided in each other. There were many similarities to the novel but they were approached in a completely different aspect. The novel is much better than the movie due to all these reasons said above.…
There was many things left out from the book in the movie of Peter Pan. some examples were how like how when the children were going to fly off with Peter, they had a hard time grasping how to fly, “they were not as elegant as Peter, they could not help kicking a little, but their heads bobbing against the ceiling..(33)”. In the book Mr. Darling gave nana his medicine as a joke but in the movie, he fell on nana and made a mess in the nursery. On page 19 in the book it says “ let us build a little house around her”, in the movie they did not do this. Also, the book says that Peter has killed many people(39), when he was talking to Wendy and her brothers, but it was not put in the movie.…
Why I think the moviemaker chose those difference between the book and the movie was because in the book there was a narrator to tell you specific things. The narrator is there to tell some background information and make sure you get a better grasp of what’s taking place. So I feel as if in the movie they wanted you to pay closer attention to what was happening. And you have to have some differences between the two. While in the movie you can see more action and can sometimes explain things better by acting out, rather than being written out.…
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets start off with Harry spending the summer with his horrible but only remaining family, the Dursleys. The Dursleys are not a very good family. On Harry’s birthday the Dursleys throw a dinner party that isn’t even for Harry. Harry is visited by a house-elf named Dobby. Dobby warns Harry not to return to Hogwarts because something bad is going to happen. Hogwarts is the magical school for wizards that Harry is attending. Harry doesn’t listen to the warning and Dobby starts to wreak havoc in the kitchen. The Dursleys end up angry and imprison Harry in his room for the rest of the summer. Harry's friend Ron Weasley takes Harry away in a flying car, and they go to the Weasley home where Harry ends up staying…
In all honesty the novel is much better than the film, in the novel the characters are more fleshed out and actually have personalities. The differences are more prominent. Some of the smaller differences are; the characters didn't have long, greasy hair, and while they were stuck at that godforsaken church they spent a lot more time outside. As stated before the biggest differences that the film honestly should've added were the scene when Pony was attacked by the socs and they should definitely have kept Mickey Mouse because he was an essential part of the…
Question: “The need to belong marks us as human and it is such connections that lead to fulfilment.”…
He described adapting the book as "tough", as it did not "lend itself to adaptation as well as the next two books." Kloves was sent a "raft" of synopses of books proposed as film adaptations, with Harry Potter being the only one that jumped out at him. He went out and bought the book, and became an instant fan. When speaking to Warner Bros. he stated that the film had to be British, and had to be true to the characters. David Heyman was confirmed to produce the film. Rowling received a large amount of creative control for the film, an arrangement that Columbus did not…