“It’s Kind of a Funny Story”: Movie Novel Comparison
The book and the movie share practically the same plot but the movie adaptation changes a lot about the characters and the backstory. “It’s Kind of a Funny Story” is based off of the author’s, Ned Vizzini, actual five day experience in a mental hospital which gives us a better feel for what these types of facilities are like. Both the movie and book captured what it is like to live with depression and the things that come along with it. The differences from book to movie were mostly minor which resulted in a different vibe to the movie.
In both movie and book, our main character, Craig Gilner is plagued with severe depression causing him to not eat, be mostly antisocial, and have thoughts of suicide. Because of these thoughts, Craig calls a hotline rather than acting on them and checks himself
…show more content…
into a mental hospital. The reason for this is different between book and movie; the movie has him strung out because of an application and the book has him worried about getting into a very prestigious high school and the affects of then being accepted. Craig had become so overloaded with the pressures of a very demanding class load that he begins to be dragged farther down by his “tentacles”, or the things in his life that affect him negatively. The movie seemed to make the situation less severe because it was a mere application that he was filling out. Once Craig gets to the mental hospital, he meets an array of very colorful characters. We see this aspect of the story mainly in the book with people like Humble, Ebony, Jimmy, Bobby, and others. In the movie, however, we are focused mainly on the minor character of Bobby. The book had Humble as being the person on the floor being kind of the “head honcho”; he was the person who everybody feared but also respected. The focus on Bobby was unnecessary because he added no real support to the main storyline of Craig being in the mental hospital. It's also doesn't focus on the girl, Noelle, that Craig has met while in the hospital. Even in the times that she is on screen the scenes barely fit what the book conveys. One of the biggest concepts of the story is the brain maps that Craig makes.
Ever since he was a child, he has enjoyed drawing maps because he could make them any way that he wanted; it gave him a sort of freedom. While in the mental hospital Craig is told to find some happiness, so he goes back to one of his first loves, art. He creates intricate maps of the different residents brains. In the movie, this part of the story is changed. He only creates regular maps with paints and he doesn't make them based off of what the residents are like. This part of the story is important and shouldn't have been changed because this is when Craig really started to see the shift that he talks about. He started to feel kind of normal again.
All in all, the book was, by far, much better than the movie. This is because the book can give us a better view of what Craig is thinking and feeling because he is our narrator. It is easier to see what is going on in his head and why he is doing what he is doing. The few changes that the screenwriters made didn't influence the story much but it would have been much better if they kept it the
same.
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
First of all in the beginning of the movie it has Maniac Magee at his parent’s funeral and he runs away straight to Two Mills. In the book Maniac is with his relatives and he can’t stand the fighting between his aunt and his uncle so he runs to Two-Mills. I like this part of the book better because I think the situation of why he runs away is more interesting. Another set of plot events in the book that are different are the three plot events that Maniac goes through when he first comes to Two-Mills. In the movie the same three plot events that are at the beginning of the book are distributed all throughout the movie. I like this about the book better because when the movie puts the three plot events in there are terrible
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
I like the reading book better than watching the movie because there are more facts in the book than the movie. Maybe I just like reading books better than watching movies. That’s my opinion. What’s yours (if you’ve read the book and seen the movie)?
In the movie dwayne plays a good part. Dwayne was the guys that stuck up for them even though people did not like their documentary. Dwayne did get shot although that did not happen in the book. Another difference most of the characters that were in the book looked way younger that what the picture said that they looked like in the book. The book did not tell us that Lloyd liked to gamble. Lloyd gambled and almost got shot in the movie. In the movie Lloyd was like the bad guy in the movie, the movie told only bad things about Lloyd and only good things about LeAlan. Another difference in the movie is that the boys who threw Eric Morse out the window were sentenced to Juvenile Detention Center till the age of twenty-one. This is a big part because they never told what the verdict was which made it seem like they were let free from what they did. The last difference is in the movie the vacant apartment that in the book said that it looked creepy and run down it looked really nice in the apartment and I did not really understand why no one lived there.
In the movie, they missed things or changed parts, but they also quoted the book quiet a lot and make the story more a like. Most of the most important parts were in the movie. They missed one of the camps that Corrie was sent to and the didn’t show much of the 100th year party of the watch shop besides a picture. I liked the book way more than the movie because the book had more detail and made you understand what that part of WWII was like more than the movie does. In the book Corrie is learning how to have more faith and trust in God more but in the movie, she had a lot of faith the whole time and she didn’t struggle with that as much. I enjoyed reading about that because it made me feel like I’m not the only one that struggles.
...rtrayed differently in the movie. Lennie is shown as being very mentally challenged, whereas in the book he is just a little slow and has a mind of a young child. Although some changes are made in the movie to make it flow better, it is still based on the same story as the book. The movie has the same plot line and characters, and some of the scenes are told in the exact same way as they are in the novel. As well, the movie and the book give out the same themes. This story is about how all the people in the Great Depression were trying to escape their unhappy, lonely lives, but weren’t capable of doing so. The movie stays very true to the book even though some things are removed or added. Everything that is added or changed still works very well and captures the film perfectly.
The plot in the film is very similar to the book but in parts, especially towards the end, the plot is slightly different to the film. The plot is varied in the film to show
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.
It was almost identical to the book. The majority of the dialogue was the same, the characters were portrayed perfectly, the scenes all looked like they were described in the book, and the plot had no major changes. As someone who had read the book before the movie was even announced, I was pleased in the way that the cast and crew brought this story to life. Even if Paper Towns wasn’t an adaption of a book, it was still an amazing onscreen story. The movie all flowed, the soundtrack really enhanced the plot, and there were characters that made you feel as if you personally knew them. This movie was great, whether you look at it from the view of someone who read the book and wanted it all to be exactly like you imagined, or if you’re someone who didn’t even know it was a book and just thought the story seemed
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.
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.
From reading the book and watching the movie, I think the book was more insightful, but the movie was more entertaining. The only problem with the movie is that you don't know what is going through Chance's mind and his background information. The movie does help make some things clearer by seeing it, instead of just picturing it in your mind. The added scenes in the movie helps to put some humor into the story and make it more entertaining. By just watching the movie, some people could be confused if they don't know some background on Chance. I think that by reading the book, you can understand the story better and by watching the movie you can enjoy the story better.
Both the movie and the book are basically based on family and relationships. The characters in the movie and the book, For example Einar, jean, Griff, and Lila and her parents all deal with loss of a family member.
Of course the film could not add all these things that I feel make it weaker than the book. It would have become a short television series or something like that if all these things were added. The story had a very long list of characters and became very involved at some points, but I think this made the book interesting to more than one audience. Some parts of Toby’s life were very comical and fun, some parts left you on the edge of your seat, making you wander why he did some of the more consequential things that he did.