For instance, the very first sentence of Hollinger’s essay starts off with this quote, “As Stephen Neale suggests, an intimate relationship seems to exist among the filmic presentation of the horror monster, the castration anxiety it evokes, and the cinematic representation of the female form.” (Hollinger pg. 243 of the Monsters book), in which she uses to intrigue the reader and to give the reader an idea about the work. Hollinger tells the reader that Neale thinks that the usual origin of a monster in a film is due to a relationship that went wrong and also claims that men are more vulnerable to certain anxieties. The placement of her reference to Neale’s essay allows the reader to conduct an idea of what the essay is going to be about and makes the reader think about what is more threatening between feminine monsters or masculine monsters.
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.
“Books and movies are like apples and oranges. They both are fruit, but taste completely different. ”-Stephen King. This relates to, The Hobbit, because Tolkien and Jackson had many different thoughts and each put them in their own version of, The Hobbit.
“Ask any reader who has seen the movie version of a favorite novel, and the answer will usually be, "The book was better. " That 's because readers of a novel have already made their own perfect movie version” (Corliss et al., 2005). It would appear that Corliss is correct because many people who have read The Hunger Games book would say that it is better than the movie. Although the Hunger Games movie is entertaining, it is very different from the book.
Suspicion can be fascinating but haunting. Since Victorian times, the suspicious death case of Sir Charles Baskerville in The Hound of the Baskerville has intrigued/compelled vast amounts of readers. However, recent audiences are more compelled to stories with a modern twist of horror and gruesomeness. Because of less main characters, a fast-paced plot, and the differing point of view of Atwood’s The Hound of the Baskervilles film adaptation, the film has a frightening, intriguing mood with a new perspective compared to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original novel.
To begin the movie scene was better, because the music and sound effects you really get to see what's going on in the movie and get a better picture in the movie than the book. “Somebody kicked me hard in the ribs and I yelped in spite of myself. some soc had knocked me out one of the four bunched and was kicking me as hard as he can.” In both the movie and the book in this
When dividing the book and movie of Enders Game into sections, we can clearly see that the movie was far more better than the book, at least visually. Not only did the movie show us greater details than the book, it also gave us an idea of what the characters and settings looked like. Some scenes that prove that the movie is richer in quality than the book; is the fight with the buggers at the beginning, the battle room scene with salamander and leopard army, and when Ender goes on the Bugger 's planet to talk to the queen. Let 's begin from the movie with the scene of the bugger 's invasion. At the beginning of the movie, we see the Formics ' (buggers) attacking Earth.
Have you ever read a book, and thought this would be a wonderful movie? Well, that’s not always the case due to when someone watches a movie that’s based on a book, nine times out of ten they come home disappointed. Although, in certain cases, the book and the movie come close to being the same. The crucible play and movie are fairly similar in numerous aspects and one could watch the movie and understand the main points of the play.
Arthur Miller was an award-winning author, who wrote many plays over the course of his life. In 1953, he wrote a play called The Crucible. His intention in writing this play was to give readers insight into the, “strangest and most awful chapters in human history” (Miller back cover), or in other words, the Salem witch hunts and trials of the seventeenth century. The Crucible is based on real events and historical people and reflects the anti-communist hysteria based around the supposed witchcraft that was happening in Salem at that time. In 1996, a film based off of Arthur Miller’s play, also called The Crucible, was released.
Officer Delinko never got promoted to detective, but in the movie he did get promoted. I hope you liked my essay, now I will say my opinion I really like the book Better than the movie by a long shot. The movie just went to fast and was missing a lot of details from the movie and it was changing different details and I just didn’t like that. The book just made for sense to me then the movie.
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.
I acknowledge that movies don 't always include everything from the book it is based on but I really feel that some scenes should have been included. For example, Janie’s family history isn 't really involved in the film. Also, if you were to just watch the movie you wouldn 't understand why Nanny forces Janie to marry
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
A common comparison made everyday is between books and movies. Many movies based on books leave out important details and scenarios disappointing the audience. In the futuristic short story, "Harrison Bergeron," by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., everyone is equal or average, what many people might consider a utopia. 2081 is a movie based on "Harrison Bergeron," and like any other book based movie, it excludes many details and alters many scenes changing the storyline.
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.