Compared to the novel Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson the film version was different from the novel. It wasn't as good as the novel in most places, but it had some good qualities, and scenes. For example, in the novel when Jess, Leslie, and the rest of the boys were racing you could see what Jess was thinking, and feeling. While in the film you could not tell what they were thinking, and feeling. This took away some of the beauty of the scene. In the film Bridge to Terabithia one thing that was captured effectively was the visual of Terabithia, and how they saw compared to what it really was. In the film they showed Terabithia, and gave you a visual of what it looked like, while in the book you had to imagine, and guess what it
The important similarities, such as how Billy saved up for and bought the dogs, the way he chopped down a giant sycamore to fulfill a promise to his dogs, and the red fern that had grown on the dogs’ graves, are all there, showing that the movie producers read the novel before they started producing it. However, the lack of an Old Billy, an actual win, and Ann’s almost death shows that the analysis of the book wasn’t quite complete when they started filming. As a result, most of the book was better than the movie, as the attachment to the characters was greater due to the scenes that were in the book, but not in the movie. The only part of the movie that was redeeming was the lack of the “first chapter,” when Old Billy gave away the win in the novel. Since that part of the plot was not in the film, it kept the victor of the competition a mystery, and therefore keeps the suspense there during the hunt. The book is one of the most tear jerking I’ve ever read, but the movie seems very distant and
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
The story of Rikki-tikki by Rudyard Kipling is a great one, so great that there is a movie made after the book. The Movie follows the story of the book, but there are differences. The differences are very small, and don’t change the story’s theme. There are more similarities between the story and the movie them there are differences, however.
The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. The amateurish style of the book gives it some appeal as a more sleek and sophisticated style wouldn’t evoke a sense of angst’ desperation and confusion that the novel does.
...d coloring of certain images. The novel, however, puts much greater emphasis on the imagination and creativity, and on the main character Tita. The novel really makes the reader feel Titas pain and grow with her as she discovers her freedom, whereas the movie failed to achieve this. Moreover, the movie tends to ignore the significant of 3 integral motifs, cooking, tears and sensuality.
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
Though the events and a lot of the dialogue are the same in both the book and the movie the crux of the two are completely different. The book focuses a lot more on sexual tension and sexual exploration. The...
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
...said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Another striking difference between the movie and the book is that both are developed by different sexes. This obviously could effect the compare and contrast views of this paper. For example, being male, I found that the two images that left the greatest impression were of sexual nature, Gertrudis making love with the soldier, and Tita being intimate with Pedro. The different views of the sexes may also be the answer to some of the contrasts between the movie and novel. For instance, the death of Mama Elena. Esquirel’s version fits the emotional death, suicide, geared toward the female audience, while Arau’s shows a more sexual and violent death, extinguishing the male desire for action. In conclusion, I found the novel more entertaining than the movie. The reason the movie fell short in expectations is because Esquirel does a great job in allowing the reader to draw on their imaginations. However, Arau is able to capture this imagery occasionally throughout the movie. Furthermore, most of the changes added to the movie were grand, which added to the thrill and plot of the story. Overall, both are memorable and deserve their legacy.
Bridge to Terabithia is set in countryside Virginia in mid- 1970's. This already is an important factor to take into account. This period of time the social structure of this country was not great. The Vietnam War was close to an end, the nation was slowly dividing with war protest, the civil rights movements, and uncertain economic times.
	Books, more often than not, are better than the movies that are made from them. This is due to the immense power of our imaginations. Readers use their imaginations to fill the space that exists between him/herself and the book with such things as dreams, past experiences, and hopes. For this reason, there is much more depth and symbolic depictions in the novella, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, compared with the movie version, Grand Isle. Due to this, the effect on the reader is much more potent than the effect on the viewer.
In the novel Big Fish by Daniel Wallace, we are told the story of Edward Bloom, a man of many adventures, who is somewhat of a myth. Big Fish is a collection of the tall tales Edward tells his son about his life, and also of the effect his tales had on his son. The novel comes from an American author from Alabama, while the movie comes from Hollywood and is directed by Tim Burton, who is also American. This story is not an ancient sacred text, so the story’s function(s) is to entertain and to make money.