Regret: as a verb, it means to feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over something that has happened or been done, especially a loss or missed opportunity. As a noun, it means almost the same thing; a feeling of sadness, repentance, or disappointment over something that has happened or been done. This is a common theme in O. Henry’s “The Ransom of Red Chief”. It tells the tale of two con men, Bill and Sam, who regret kidnapping a young boy, nicknamed ‘Red Chief’, after he proves to be wild and uncontrollable. The film adaptation starts off with the same basis, but Bill and Sam never really experience the feeling of regret, and the ending is completely different. The short story, “The Ransom of Red Chief” by O. Henry is preferred over the …show more content…
There are way too many insignificant characters who added nothing more than a touch of stupid humor and maybe an extra five minutes. For example, the film really did not need Filthy McNasty or Strange Pierre, the serial killers who escaped from prison and attempted to kidnap Red Chief from the original kidnappers, Bill and Sam. They were really only there to add a bit of suspense and to take the fall for Bill and Sam’s actions. Without them the film could follow the path of the original story, and make the film better. Another change that could be made is removing a few scenes. Just like the characters, there are at least four scenes that should’ve been cut from the final film but weren’t. One of these is the scene where the helium in Ebenezer Dorset’s ‘hunch’ blew out and he flew through the air like some kind of human Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade balloon, with his son in his hands. It was painfully long, and, although it was funny the first few times, the novelty wore off quickly. Without this scene the movie would have still been funny without being flat-out …show more content…
First, Bill and Sam running away from Red Chief would make the film better because not only does it stay true to the story, it would also be hilarious. This would improve the version because it goes back on the theme of regret. Second, having Sam narrate the story would make the movie better. Having Sam narrate the movie would also take out unnecessary scenes, like when the Sheriff’s men ‘sniffed out’ the con men (by literally sniffing the ground for clues), or the long chase at the end between Red Chief’s mother, Agnes Dorset, in a fortune teller’s caravan, the sheriff’s men on horseback, and Sam and Mr. Dorset in the Dorset family car. This addition (or subtraction, however you may take it to be) would make the film better because it would stay true to O. Henry’s original version, but it would also take out an unnecessary character: the sheriff.
O. Henry’s “The Ransom of Red Chief” is clearly better than the film version. Bill and Sam’s regret for kidnapping Red Chief and the story’s simplicity make it so. Although, changes and additions that could be made include Sam narrating the film and having Bill and Sam run away from an enraged Red Chief at the end, as well as removing insignificant characters and scenes. With its lack of similarites to the original story, as well as the halfway decent parts smothered in excess amounts of cheap humor,
There are a lot of different things in the book and the movie. These are some of the things that are the same. In both the book and the movie red chief scalped bill. Another thing is when Sam told red chief that if he did not behave he would have to go home and red chief did not want to. Also red chief did not like bill and tried to hurt him.
The reason I think the movie was better is because it gave me a better visualization of what was happening. Another reason being is that it had a greater impact on how I felt.
I think these differences make the book and the movie way both interesting. I think the differences are good because it sums it all up and with hearing both the book and the movie it fills in the blank questions in your
Throughout person’s life, they do a lot of things they end up regretting. People’s mistakes can sometimes end up with death. Another reason people regret their actions is because they are rash and not well thought out. People live for a very long time and they often regret much of their lives.
It had more narration so the reader could understand what is happening. Secondly, the movie. The movie was different than the book. It had some parts that were in the book, but it lacked some details.
One huge difference in the setting, in the book the story takes place on the shore of lake Michigan in a brand new apartment building in a small town. On the other hand the movie takes place old, run down apartment in the middle of a huge city. Another example is the characters, in the book there are 16 heirs with eight pairs. In the movie there are 10 heirs and 5 pairs. Also the movie leaves out some huge characters like Theo Theodorakis, Flora Baumbach, and
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.
In conclusion i will be telling if i like either the book or movie better. I think the book was better. The book shows more emotion and feelings than in the movie. The movie didn't show half the stuff that went on in the book. The movie shows no feelings or
The Witch of the Blackbird Pond was about a girl named “Kit” or Katherine Tyler who ended up meeting a lady named Hannah Tuff, who people thought was a witch. Kit’s journey began when she moved to Wethersfield to live with her aunt named Rachael after her grandfather passed away. She traveled on a boat called the dolphin, and met Nat Eaten and flirted and hung out with him. She also met a polite, young man named John Holbrook. During the trip they stopped by America, and Kit got off the boat.
In the end I found the film to be easier to understand vs the book as it was an easier and more straight forward plot line whereas in the book it seemed to jump around leading to constant flipping between stories and pages to get a better
The movie itself was okay, but Percival decisions to lessen the character of the storyteller, Death, to leave out parts of Max’s character as a fighter and the beginning of his friendship with the man who spared his life, and to changes the circumstances in which the mayor and his wife quit using Rosa to wash their clothing, ultimately destroy the movie. Death, the narrator, describes the souls he collects and the reader hears him throughout the book, always there, but
I would say Andy, Red and Bogs differed from what I thought they would look like from the book to the movie. I feel these characters might have been changed because of the director's vision for these characters, especially casting Morgan Freeman as Red due to his wise presence and
There aren’t only just differences between the story and the movie. There are also some likenesses. First of all, both the movie and the story had Bill getting hurt by Red Chief the most. Also, they both had the father not even having a care for red chief. Finally, both of them had the kidnappers returning Red
Greed is one of the worst things a person can have in his or her characteristics during the Middle Ages. The representation of being greedy made you get looked upon by the people in many bad ways. A good example of this is “The Pardoner's Tale” by Geoffrey Chaucer. “The Pardoner's Tale” shows that the idea of not being greedy in order to enhance the characterization of the Pardoner, as he used the church to his advantage to earn money.
I enjoyed the movie better than the book. It included just the right amount of action scenes, description words, and details from the story. The story was amazing but I like seeing things more than reading them. I usually like the movies better than the book.