Compare And Contrast The Hunger Games Book Vs Movie

The Outsiders is a great book focusing on loss, grief, and to be strong to move on in life, and the book was eventually turned into a film, however a movie can only be so long. Movies based off books are usually not everything the book was, for instance books let you go into the character’s head and some scenes that don’t further plot have to be cut, however no movie is perfect and neither are books both have to constantly be judged on what makes it on the final product and what doesn’t. Sometimes though people can make the wrong choice. Especially when a book is turned into a movie with the plot being cut or something 's changed to help fit budget or timing. The Outsiders is a great example of this; do to entire scenes being taken out and some things are changed.

Comparison of the Day of the Locust by Nathaniel West While both the book and the film with the title, “The Day of the Locust” are both similar, they create different pictures. There are a few things in the book that changed in the movie, and they are all based on the scenes and the characters. The Hollywood scenes in the novel are almost illusionary.

In the movie version of Orson Scott Card's, Ender's Game, many differences compared to the content of the book were presented. Overall, it could be observed that the differences and additions to the book were a bad choice for such a great book because it was incompetent to match the theme, make character relationships well and developed, and its inability to correctly convey the main character, Ender Wiggins feeling as he moves up rank in the International Fleet. The movie presented various pieces of rising action which cheapened the thrill of the climax, and in ways when compared to the book, was somewhat ironic. In the book, there are three main characters: Ender, Valentine, and Peter.

Compare Contrast: Where the Red Fern Grows Relationships in the Novel and the Movie As you readers and movie watchers may all wonder, will there EVER be a movie that is the same as its novel counterpart? The answer is, we all highly doubt it. If we were to watch a movie exactly the same as the book version, wouldn’t it be quite boring? Yes it would.

The 2013 film version was full of flashbacks of the past while Nick Carraway narrated the story of The Great Gatsby to his psychiatrist. The setting in this new movie was somewhat in the period of the 1920’s. However, the music, the behavior, and the costumes made the movie look too modern for the 1920’s. The new movie was somewhat like the book, but there were some events that were skipped or were not included.

You now know that the Call of the Wild book was very different from the movie. You also now know that differences always occur in book/movie crossovers. You now also know that the book was published in 1903 so there were things the movie could not show or express. Most important of all though, you now know John Thornton was important to the book, but he was the movie’s main focus.

The book and movie versions of A Series of Unfortunate Events very big differences. The biggest differences between the movie is Violet uses a grappling hook to save sunny from the tower. In the movie klaus climbs the tower without a grappling hook. I also thought this was not the biggest change

In my opinion, I really like the play, because it was really funny. However, the movie, in my opinion, was very bland and boring. The play was much funnier than the movie, while the movie was a very antique and old film. The only thing that I liked about both, the movie and the play, was that there weren’t that many differences that stood out to the people. There a lot of similarities, between the movie and the play, than there is differences between the movie and

Into The Wild Film vs. Book Over the past few decades, there has been many book that have made it into the film industry. Most of the time the movies are exact illustrations of what the book writers wanted to portray, but sometimes movies start a love or hate relationship with critics because of a slight change to story lines, characters, and/or roles played. Sometimes this is done to gain the interest of watchers and add more excitement, or even to help better understand the story.

I might complain sometimes that I don’t like it when a movie changes a book but most of the times it’s ok because it can make the story more fun, interesting and less boring. Or if you don’t understand the book or play then the movie might help in understanding what the story is telling the viewer

A common comparison made everyday is between books and movies. Many movies based on books leave out important details and scenarios disappointing the audience. In the futuristic short story, "Harrison Bergeron," by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., everyone is equal or average, what many people might consider a utopia. 2081 is a movie based on "Harrison Bergeron," and like any other book based movie, it excludes many details and alters many scenes changing the storyline.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a wonderful book made movie adaptation, but as with every book turned movie, they vary in many ways. Movies can often close off the world that the reader loved and found within the pages of the book, but if one digs a little deeper, they may also find themselves learning more about the characters than they ever thought they would. Unfortunately, this movie still leaves its viewers craving something more. TheTo Kill a Mockingbird movie missed many key points from the book.

In The Great Gatsby movie, Daisy, for example mostly spoke sweetly throughout the whole movie. In the book, her voice was described as ringing like money. Instead, in the movie she appeared to be an innocent person but was actually extraordinary selfish in her own actions. In the movie, Jay Gatsby had a violent, dramatic outburst at the Plaza Hotel when he was provoked by Tom Buchanan. Another difference would be that Jordan Baker and Nick Carraway did NOT have a loving relationship like in the book; they didn’t communicate in the movie as much as they did in the movie.

Really the movie is more of a summary of the book, rather than a tie in. One good thing about the simplicity of the movie was the fact that it wasn’t really that hard to follow, which is good for the average movie goer who wants a decent movie to sit down to that looks good and enjoy popcorn with. Where do I even start with the difference between the book and the movie. Firstly the movie places most of the side characters out of order when they show up, for example when ender is launching off for the first time to battle school he meets Alai and Bean on the launch. In the book Alai is already in salamander army to begin with in the story.

In the book there was not even the slightest thought of releasing Fiona ,but in the movie they decided to add in an irrelevant detail about them trying to release her to “Elsewhere”, The Giver was the only one who wanted to be released so that he could see his daughter, Rosemary, again. So, I think the movie team could have done a lot better on the movie than they actually did. To conclude, the book and movie, “The Giver”, have many similarities but also many differences. The movie crew tried to stay true to the story, but did not really accomplish it.