In the movie productions of And Then There Were None and A Wrinkle in Time, the directors ventured away from the original story line. Sometimes, directors add events or take away original events to create more suspense or to build on the story line. Nevertheless, this is shown in both productions as they differ from their corresponding book. Foremostly, the director of the movie production of And Then There Were None ventured away from the original story line. This can be distinguished in the scene where Judge Wargrave (Judge Francis in the movie) and Dr. Armstrong form an alliance to discover who the killer actually was. This differs from the book, where it is more “every man for himself”. This has a suspenseful effect because you …show more content…
An example of this is when Meg met Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which. In the book, Meg met Mrs. Whatsit first, and then met Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which at the same time. However, in the movie, they are all introduced to Meg at different times. This makes the movie have a more sort of exciting feel to it because you keep getting introduced to new characters, which each add their own elements to the story. Another example of difference between the book and the movie production is the appearance of the characters. In the book, Meg wore glasses and had braces, portraying her as an outcast. In the book, Calvin had orange hair and freckles, and was very tall, making him stand out as an athlete. These traits are all nonexistent or not as prominent in the movie production. This adds less characterization to the movie production, making this aspect of the book stand out more. What you look like stereotypically builds from and adds on to what your character is about, so seeing them in the movie as very average teenagers and not necessarily looking like the ideal Meg and Calvin is pretty off putting. All in all, there were changes made in the movie production of A Wrinkle in Time to add more excitement, as well as changes creating less vitality to who Meg and Calvin’s character are all
There are few similarities between the book and the movie. Usually most movies are similar to
The books, A Wrinkle in Time and And Then There Were None, both have many differences in the movie versions. The directors of both movies change the plot to make the movie see fit to what they may have imaged the book to be, while still keeping the story line the same.
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
In both the novel and movie focus on the war. The war influences the characters to enroll.Also, the main setting is at the Devon School. However, in the novel Gene visits Leper at his house but in the movie Leper lives in the woods.In the novel Gene is coming back to the Devon School 15 years later.However, in the book he is coming to Devon as a new student.Therefore, similarities and differences exist in time and setting in the novel and the movie.In the novel and the movie there are similarities and differences in events, character, and time and setting.
In And Then There were there were lots of things that were different than Clue. One thing that was different than Clue is that And then there wasn't on an island. Also in And Then Were None the movie was made in two different periods of time than the clue. Also in And then the butler was killed. In and then there were none the characters had a British accent. In and then there were none the characters were also British.
Some of the characters in the novel, like Lennie, are portrayed differently in the movie. In the novel, Lennie is said to be “a huge man” (2), but in the movie he isn’t very big, although he is bigger than George and some of the other characters. In the movie he is stronger and bigger than the others, but not to the extreme amount that the book portrays him to be. Also, Lennie is depicted as very mentally challenged, which is shown by the way he speaks. Whereas in the book, Lennie is said to have a mind of a young child instead of being disabled. As well as Lennie, Curley’s wife is represented a little bit differently. In the movie,...
The decision of the screenwriter and director to cut out what I felt were several story arcs and scenes from the novel was very disappointing. For example, in the movie there is no mention of Beth's shyness, or of her overcoming that shyness to become friends with Mr. Lawrence. The scene in the novel where she gathers her courage to walk over to his house and thank him for giving her his piano is one of the most defining moments for Beth. Overall I found Beth and Mr. Lawrence to both be sadly underdeveloped in the movie. Mr. Lawrence appears in only three scenes, while many of Beth's key moments also vanished. Jo's wonderful tomboyish nature is also severely tone-down for this version. She does not say "Christopher Columbus"; nor any of her other slang words. We never see the scene where she longs to go be a soldier fighting in the war and wishes she were a man. They transformed the character of Meg from someone who longs for finer things and tends to be snobbish into the wise older sister who does not care about such things. Lacking is the wonderful moment when she realizes that she does not care about Mr. Brook's poverty as she staunchly defends her love of him against Aunt March. While Amy's quest for a perfect nose is mentioned twice, there is never a scene showing some of her efforts such as her wearing the clothespin on it at night to make is straight, nor do we get enjoy watching her artistic endeavors such as her attempts to make a plaster cast of her foot.
Of the many changes made between the book and the movie, most were made to keep the audience interested in the story. Most people who watch TV don’t have a long attention span. Executives at NBC didn’t want to spend millions to produce a movie and then have nobody watch it. The screenwriters had to throw in some clever plot twists to keep people interested. Another reason the movie was different from the book was the material in the book was a little too racy for network TV. Take the ending, for example, nobody wants to see a grown man hang himself. This was a reason the producers had to change some material in the movie.
One thing that can make a book good is characters. In the book, there were many more animals in the farm. The movie did not show many animals except for the main animals. Even thought this is a small difference, it can be noticeable. In the book, Mollie was a character.
There are usually differences in two different versions of something. This can often be seen when a book is made into a movie. There are many similarities and differences in the book and movie versions of To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
Another example is when Chance watches television. In the book, the narrator explains that when Chance changes the channel, he feels like he is changing himself. As he changes the channel, he gets caught up in all the different images he sees. In the movie, all you see is a man watching television, which doesn't explain too much. In the movie, the only time we find out what Chance thinks of television is when he is talking to someone else.
Both the movie and the book had a different way of expressing this, therefore there are numerous obvious contrasts. Despite the common concepts, Ava Duvernay failed to give viewers the idea that Madeleine L’Engle was trying to convey. Due to many differences between the movie and the novel “A Wrinkle in Time”, the novel told the story with a better perspective because of three major differences: character development, setting, and plot sequencing. The book was exceptionally composed with various strengths and a few shortcomings.
Similarities and Differences of "A Wrinkle in Time" Film and Novel Ava Duvernay’s film, “A Wrinkle in Time,” is an adaptation of L’Engle’s novel, which was published in 1962. The film adopts various aspects from the original book but still differs because of changes in time and other factors that distinguish them. Concerning the setting, the novel’s setting is New England in the 1960s; thus, it is historical while the movie is set in modern times; nonetheless, both productions discuss the Murry family, which is devoted to making new discoveries in the universe (L'Engle 43). The film does not feature some characters, such as Dennys and Sandy who appear in the book as Meg’s twin brothers.
Many plot events were important to the story and stayed the same in the movie because of their importance , however in the movie