Also in the book you can see more character development. Even though the film was not exactly like the book the director did a great job, and this still is one of my favorite movies. Percy Jackson and the lightning thief was an incredible book and movie. Though the movie forgot a couple things it was still an amazing film. I would recommend both.
Although the movie did have some interesting additions and removals, the book was far more appealing to a general audience than the movie. One of the first reasons for why the book is better than the movie is because of the characters. In the movie, they removed Yitzchak and Reuven. These are very important characters in the story. They even replaced Gitl with Aunt Mina, who did not play as big of a role compared to Gitl’s.
I think the movie version is better than the book. The reason for this is because the movie has a lot more character than the book does. You get to see what the characters look like, while the book doesn’t give a good description of the people in the book at all. You can feel the mood better in the movie because of all of the extra things, like the lightning and fog, to capture the mood. Some similarities I found in both the movie and the book is that Scrooge says, “Bah!
Think about this. Are you interested in a book that can tear you up? That can make you look at yourself and say “Wow, Thank god I’m not them.” Well, the Outsiders is the perfect book for that. Not only is the book great, they made a movie of it and was exceptionally good too, thanks to Francis Ford Coppola for directing it. This book is originally called the Outsiders, where there are groups of people in the hood that stand tall next to their labels.
I believe the scenes showed in the 2013 movie, directed by Baz Luhrmann, would be more appreciated by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Rather than the 1974 movie, directed by Jack Clayton. I think the 2013 film does a better job, showing the scenes and making them look good. They are more exciting and alive, and show better detail overall from the book.
The book is better than the movie, a comment that is stated after every film adaptation ever known to man. Why does the book always seem to be more preferable? Seeing the book on screen, through the eyes of the director, will never live up to the expectations that were implanted upon the viewer when the book was read themselves. “The Odyssey” is a superior work of art to the film O! Brother, Where Art Thou?
GENRE/ STYLE ASSIGNMENT Action movies are more appealing to certain demographic distributions. Bourne Ultimatum is ideally based on fantasy, and the audiences are tipped to identify with the unbelievably capable and original actor, and it seems so realistic that it only enhances the same fantasy. Even though Pamela Landy and Nicky Parsons are represented as the guardian of morals in the movie, this genre almost invariably represents females as not powerful. Paul Greengrass, the director, enjoys the interpretive shots that seem to overwhelm the composition. Since the composition doesn’t have to be perfect, the interior lightings can be somewhat green as opposed to being fluorescent.
Between the two Walter Mitty stories one is obviously better. the text is the better one because it doesn’t try to be funny it takes humor from real life situations. In the movie they try too hard to make it funny and it makes the jokes half as funny as they could be. In the scenes where he is day dreaming about the girl it is not something that the real Walter Mitty would daydream about. In the text it describes him as being the hero in his day dreams There are multiple reasons that the text version of Walter Mitty is better than the movie.
Everyone will form their conception of submarine warfare after this film. There are so many books may seem like the authors write: You will not change the fact that this film is regarded as the only "correct" document. This has to do with the persuasive power of images, which is stronger than that of words.” (Buchheim, n.d.) While this may have created an enjoyable movie, it was not one that was true to
Although no movie based on a book is fully satisfactory, it is always amusing to watch the storyline in a different light. Jenn Doll, from The Atlantic, explains that “Because a criticism of how it should have been -- and almost always plays out better in our minds -- is in some ways part of the fun of seeing the movie made from a book we love” (Doll). It is an exciting experience to anticipate what we know already in our minds, to be projected into the real world. Overall, the book is a thrilling read, the movie is a thrilling visual, but nothing would ever beat the books complexity of feelings and