This could have been the filmmakers trying to keep the story moving or trying to maintain the audience attention. This could also be a case of Davis believing the two men meet previously but having no actual evidence. Because of her belief, she was able to include this scene in the movie but was forced to leave it out of a book that relied on historical documents. When compared to the book, the film does a much better job of placing the viewer in the world of Martin Guerre. One of the advantages of films is the communication of people and places that written descriptions cannot.
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.
The most prominent similarity was the fact that Liesel still adored to steal and read books. Without this trait, this would be an entirely different book. The two most salient differences between the book and movie were the fact that Max Vandenburg didn’t give Liesel and books and that Death didn’t give any, or almost any, comments and narrations. Without these, there are noticeable differences between the film adaptation and book. All in all, I prefered the book better.
Another flaw which causes the ineffectiveness of his article is his weak arguments. Although his arguments may be true, the depth he goes into to explain his thoughts are slim which causes suspicions to raise at the truth behind his arguments. For example, Rosenfeld writes about different health laws in California, the UK, and Australia and although his information is valid the brief description he provides is not a sufficient amount of evidence for readers to know if what he has stated is true or not. Along with his brief description, he has no sources to back up what he is stating. Upon research I conducted myself, I found that Rosenfeld was indeed truthful in his attempt to persuade his readers into believing his argument but again with how brief and weak his argument is, it causes his essay to become ineffective in persuading his
In the novel, though Big Brother’s name often shows up in the book, he never truly appears: there isn’t any detailed description of Big Brother. This certain level of ambiguity make the literature deep and worth discussing, enhancing the literary merit of the novel. “But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts”(Orwell 104). Such an idea encourages Winston Smith to rebel and escape the society in the following chapters. Thus, the ambiguity also somehow promotes the development of the story in the
Why do people always say that the book was better than the movie? Film makers tend to get a bad reputation about ruining books by making them into movies. However, that may not always be the case. Some books can be considered to follow the storyline very well, like the in the story The Secret Life of Bee’s. Despite the fact that the Daughters of Mary had no impact in the movie, the film was still a faithful adaptation of the book because of the similarities of Lily’s relationship with August, and the outcome of the altercation with T-Ray.
For example, he lies, his actions with Grendel’s mother, and his actions with the Queen. All of these show how Beowulf’s morality is not exactly the same heroic qualities the reader remembers from the book. In the movie he seems to have more bad qualities. Beowulf is not really a bad person, but from watching the movie the viewer can assume that Beowulf is almost more human-like. When reading Beowulf the reader can see how he is such an epic hero and has all the good qualities like being heroic, brave, loyal, and being basically superior over ordinary humans.
In the film Shawshank Redemption directed by Frank Darabont several minor characters were used but Tommy imparticularly makes a difference. Tommy as a minor character does not develop in the same way as the protagonists Red and Andy but Darabont uses him to reflect the good that still exists. He is witty, fun and is a reflection of what life should be like he is shown like this through his dialogue such as when he is first introduced and is telling a story “Yes sir, I sure did, but if I drop this fucking thing you got me on destruction of property too." Another way he is reflecting what life should be like is through the lighting as he is never shown in darkness. Darabont shows this primarily in the scene that Tommy dies where he meets the
But why does that matter in the context of the journey to freedom? What truly matters is the outcome. Although the ending is mostly pointless, Huck is liberated from his fear, while the fate of the migrants is yet to be seen. In conclusion, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was written for our enjoyment, but the book is so engaging that the journey to freedom of the characters in the novel can be compared and contrasted with that journey of real people in the past and present. First of all, connections between the Syrian migrant crisis and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn that pertain to the journey to freedom can be made.
Wes Ball, the director of the film did want to have his vision on how the "Maze Runner" should look like and add his touch of adapting the source material, but sometimes complicating things only work against you and this is one of those cases as his attempt falls short and just makes this version so different from the world he try to introduce us in the last film. If you like the first movie and never read the books I guess you are going to be okay with the product. It may be a bit confusing as there is not much explanation of what is happening, but still the movie is enjoyable. If you did read the book, just be prepared to have yourself disappointed as the movie has a different perspective on the tales from the
This gives Brick’s distaste for Maggie less justification in the movie version. Again this is because of the Motion Picture Production Code which said that special care had to be given to how marriage was treated. In conclusion, there were some changes made to make this into a movie. The omission of Brick’s possible homosexual relationship with Skipper is a big change. This lead to the added scene with Big Daddy and Brick which gave the movie a happier ending and gave characters closure.
If I had to memorize a book or risk its extinction I would choose The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy because it is a humorous book that doesn’t take itself too seriously. I feel that many people could learn from this. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is a comedic adventure novel following Englishman Arthur Dent who not only is having a bad what with his house being torn down for a bypass and narrowly escaping the destruction of Earth by an alien race known as the Vorgons for ,ironically, an intergalactical bypass in a spaceship with his alien best friend Ford Perfect.
Many fans of the original 1947 version consider it a classic movie that should not have been remade, but some critics disagree. Critics loved that the remake included such a popular cast such as the “Jurassic Park” star Richard Attenborough and Mara Wilson who also starred in films like “Mrs. Doubtfire” and “Matilda”. Although the two films have many differences, both films had the same goal in mind. That goal was to allow people to escape from their mundane lives, and get into the Christmas spirit.
Most movies and books have significant differences, but that is not the case with Of Mice and Men. The film depicted every aspect of the novel almost perfectly. Although the film brought the words in the novel to life, it also brought on a different opinion of some of the characters. My opinion of George Milton changed after I watched the movie because the novel expressed how George was always trying to protect and care for Lennie. The movie showed George caring for Lennie but it did not show George protecting Lennie much when Curley was beating him up.
If one scene didn’t happen, than a scene that’s connected to that wouldn’t have happened. One plotline that I found necessary in the novel was the Locke and Demothenes scheme that Peter and Valentine set up. Without that plot, Valentine didn’t go to Eros to convince Ender to come with her to colonize the Formics’ world, which led to Ender finding the fantasy game setting on Eros instead. However, there were some accuracy to the plot of the film. For example, even though Ender beats Stilson up with an object he found in the classroom they were in, the aftermath of it was quite spot on.