Although, the author is also making the book for entertainment they are also trying to tell us something. Both the book and the movie gave us the same message. This message of both the novel and the film is to be different. Being the same is boring but being different makes people unique. By showing sameness they are showing how everything in Jonas’ world is boring and when it’s different people are happier and Gerchick 3 the world is a better place.
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of her belief, she was able to include this scene in the movie but was forced to leave it out of a book that relied on historical documents.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.
In the book and in the movie I could tell what the characters and the actors were thinking and feeling. In the book I could tell what the characters were thinking and feeling because how they acted. In the movie I could really tell how the actors were thinking and feeling because of the emotions they showed. The main theme of the book and movie is loneliness and isolation. The main message they were trying to put out to me was having each other 's back was more important to them than caring about if people cared about them.
Books and movies are great pastimes, and many people enjoy them because they tell stories in their own unique way. But books have been proven to exercise brains, letting the reader dictate the story, while movies on the other hand,put the viewer into passive thinking, and let the director dictate the story. Take Homer’s The Odyssey, for example. It’s a perfect example of how a story delivered by a book is more effective than it’s movie counterpart. The usage of techniques in the book convey a whole new story experience for readers, something that a movie can’t do.
Yet I believe these are the key relationships that throw off the symbolism and meaning the story, but keep the storyline in check, differing the depth of the novel and the movie. Maybe the movie was slightly different from the book, but like I said before, if would be quite boring if they were exactly the
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 the
Little factors can play a huge role in making a story feel different. 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
One part I was especially flustered with that was left out in the movie was the process of Jeanette overcoming adversity and befriending Dinita. I thought that particular section was especially important since it’s really shaped Jeanette’s future and how her dad’s side of the family perceived her. I will credit the movie with being able to give the readers a visual on the characters and their lives. Scene nine of the movie The Glass Castle in comparison to the book was pretty accurate but they did leave out and add in some details. By watching the movie I was able to see and feel the mood a little better with the help of background music and lighting fixtures.
As I watched The Outsiders movie I realized that there were many differences and similarities to the book. Overall, me being picky, personally thought that the movie was different from the book. I liked the movie, however, I think that I would probably like the movie better if I hadn’t had read the book, that way I would feel so strongly about the who I think the characters are. The scenes were pretty accurate to the book in the movie and there weren’t a lot of scenes that were different, or not in the movie. One of these times was in was in the rumble when it started raining, even though it didn’t in the movie.
Although both media’s use the law of repetition, there are still differences in how the two media’s use repetition in the telling of Cinderella. The original telling of Cinderella uses repetition in a more obvious form as it is the books way of building expense and tension for the reader. As the book needs to use the Law of Repetition in order to interest the readers, the telling of Cinderella through a movie, the movie is able to build suspense in other ways shown through the use of music, camera angles and lighting (Tosenberger). As movies have more ways to build tension and suspense for the viewers, there shows to be less of a need for the use of
There are so many good foreign films that don’t have such a slow moving plot. Au Revoir Les Enfants as a whole isn’t a bad movie, but it quickly became way too predictable and I think to showcase a foreign film there are better options. In future semesters maybe show City of God or Ida. Other good films to show future semesters could be Trainspotting for the independent film since it’s a great movie that I don’t think a lot of
This lead to the added scene with Big Daddy and Brick which gave the movie a happier ending and gave characters closure. Maggie’s denial of her affair with Skipper in the movie is also added because of the culture it was made in. Both the film and the play are very alike in many ways, but both have differences which changes the
The movie, Kingdom of Heaven, is a good example of a historical movie, but it also has several parts with false information. The movie was about the second crusades. The movie is very informative, but the problem is there is also some information that is misleading. The movie has different scenes that didn’t actually happen that way. The three main elements are the longbows, the siege weapons, and the medicinal observations.
It described everything, the setting and the mood. 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.
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. There were way too many differences such as, the characters were older and did not look how I pictured them to look in my head, they could not add in extra details from the book, but they could add in irrelevant ones.