Other changes had no effect on the story because they were just items added in for dramatic effect, like Gatsby’s aggression towards Tom after Tom told him they were not equal. I feel like if I would have watched the movie first and then read the book the changes would seem much more
The book Fahrenheit 451 was turned into a movie which included many similarities and differences from the book. The biggest difference was Clarisse in general because she was a teacher instead of a student, she never died when it was said she did, and her overall character was a little off due to these simple changes. There was also no war in the movie, which made it so that there was no bombing at the end so the city wasn’t destroyed. Faber also wasn’t in the movie, although he was a major character in the book because of his influence over Montag. While there were many differences there were also similarities, but they were mostly small details.
In transition of scenes the director included music and there was no connection of the music to the movie in the review. As well as though Ebert may know of the types of films the director rights he fails to tell the audience that the director specializes in documenting journeys so that way the audience can connect that back to the movie even though it was not based on a true story. Also, there was no discussion of how the relationship between Dora and Josue, he talks about how the relationship was in the beginning, but not throughout the
To Kill A Mockingbird: Read it, Don’t Watch it. Have you ever watched the movie adaptation of a book, only to find that the book is far superior to it’s movie counterpart? Oftentimes when a book is adapted into a movie, there are some differences between the two. Sometimes the differences are subtle, but other times the differences are dramatic and can affect the development of the story. An example of this is the movie adaptation of the novel To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
It is a scene with no important dialogue, no impact on the story as far as making or breaking the movie, and if cut would probably allow for an extra minute of exposition or resolve in the plot. However, it is a very important scene because we get to see the coming of age theme well in the short time that we are viewing the scene. In fact, in the duration of a minute and forty-nine seconds we have absolutely no dialogue coming from the main character or any of the various supporting extras that are seen aside from general inaudible chatter that we can hear. Instead Sophia decides to use this small scene to do something that is particularly different in a period piece of this caliber; ignore the speech and tone of usual Marie Antoinette films and focus on giving the audience a visual of Marie Antoinette combined with modern music from the 1980’s band Sioux and the banshees, playing as both a non-diegetic and a diegetic at the same
Though the novel Chasing Lincoln’s Killer includes lots of information about the entire conspiracy, including many pictures of the suspects involved, the other two works do not. In the excerpt from The Plot to Kill Lincoln, the author chooses to talk mainly about Booth and Lincoln. She includes very little about Lewis Powell and nothing at all about either David Harold, Mary Surratt, nor George Atzerodt. The producers of Killing Lincoln also mainly revolved the movie around Booth. However, they also included lots of staging where David Herold was with Booth and give plenty of information about Herold, too.
The themes of the movie weren’t gradiently produced but rather plunged right into in the movie. For example, when Scout stood up for Atticus when the locals were going to go into the station and kill Tom it was shown in the first 15-25 minutes of the movie. In the book that scene of innocence wasn’t shown until further chapters, thus proving that the theme of innocence was thrown at the audience in the movie. This caused the audience to not know the full development of the theme, but in the book, the readers can grasp the central theme of innocence. The other theme Good vs.
However, this is not the kind of movie I take interest in; I am more about action and thriller, not much of a documentary type of person. To me this piece, was a bit annoying since it didn’t real seem like a kids friendly movie, they were no jokes or laughs in the film. Everything was just a bit to serious. However the story that the author was trying to convey, I believe it reached me. But, I am still curious to know that if they were treated so harshly how did they make it to America, shouldn’t many of them have died?
With this, details about these themes can sometimes be left out when making a movie about a book. Because of this, the novel best illustrates the themes Harper Lee advocated because of the exclusion of details in the movie, and decrease in significance of parts. The movie, that was made behind this story, left out many details that provided better illustration of the themes meant for it. A few things that were not in the movie at all include, school scenes from inside, Miss Maudie's house catching on fire, and characters like Aunt Alexandra and Dolphus Raymond. We can see an example of importance being left out with, "It helps folks if they can latch onto a reason .
They both used the two elements in the book/movie, but they had used them in a different matter. In the book the people that talked sort of like a robot due to have no emotions, eventually gained the emotions later on in the book. But in the movie the people of the community didn't really get any sort of emotion in their speaking until the very end when Jonas broke through the memory boundary. Also, the thing that was used the same was the color and how the people of the community didn't really see color. So as you can see the author and the writer of "The Giver" had both used the elements of color and Dialogue, but have used the Dialogue different.
Orme 1 Ava Orme Dr. Shadden-Cobb Writing 24 Oct. 2016 The Outsiders: Book vs. Movie When you read a book and then watch the movie of that book, there will always be a few differences. The Outsiders book and movie hold that statement true. Most of the more important events are the same, but a lot of the details do not match up. The book told more details and made the important things pop out. The movie left out a lot of the little things that made a big difference overall.
It also didn’t happen in the book so I don’t see a reason for it. Now you know why the book and movie of Ender’s Game are so different and why the book is better. The movie adds unnecessary parts to it like ender when Ender had gotten tranquilized. It takes out many important parts in the movie like when Ender goes to salamander army. It even uses some important parts, but switches important things like dialogue, action, and even points of time.