Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare movies and books review
Movie adaptation theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Best of Me is a book with a lot of romance, drama, and fun. The book portrays different things than the movie did. There was also the similarities. The book and movie will both go back and forth from Dawson and Amanda’s summer together, to present time where they are in their lives. The book and and movie were both tear jerkers, and I recommend reading the book and watching the movie. There were many differences in the book compared to the movie. One of the differences was in the movie Dawson has always known of Amanda, but truly introduced himself to her when he was working at a restaurant, in the book they started as lab partners. Another thing that was different was in the movie the director made it seem that Dawson killed Bobby Cole, which was not even a character in the book, when in the book he killed a doctor in a car accident. In both the movie and the book, Tuck dies and has Amanda and Dawson reunite in Oriental where they look back on the memories they made when they dated in high school. The movie and book portray that the Cole’s and the Colier’s do not get along. So when Amanda Colier and Dawson Cole start dating that leaves a bad relationship …show more content…
for Amanda and her parents. They try to do everything they can to split the two up. It eventually works when Amanda gets accepted to Duke, and Dawson realizes that they do not have the same futures. Similarities that I thought that were important to the book and movie was they kept Tuck the same.
If they were to change Tuck’s character it could lose importance of why Dawson got to stay with Tuck throughout his whole high school time. Tuck was lonely because he lost his wife, Clara, a little bit before Dawson one night crashed in Tuck’s shop. Tuck was like a father figure to Dawson, even if he never admitted it. He let him eat his food, use his bathing stuff, and let him sleep under a roof. It is important that the director of the movie kept in that Dawson’s father kept coming back to Tuck’s shop for Dawson’s money because it helps the audience realize how bad the Cole’s were. The Cole’s in both the movie and book are not looked upon as good people. They kill people, steal things, and are in jail a
lot. Both in the book and movie Amanda and her husband Frank do not have a good marriage. They met at college, and ended up marrying. They are wealthy because he has his own dentist place. They originally had three children, after one of them got cancer and died things changed between Amanda and Frank. Frank started to drink more and more each day. In the book after the visit to Oriental when she reunites with Dawson, she continues to live her days with Frank. Comparing it the movie, she goes home to get her things to meet Dawson again, and tells Frank she is leaving him. A huge difference from the book to movie was at the end when Dawson was back in Oriental after Tuck passed away Nicholas Sparks writes that Dawson is killed by one of his cousins. In the movie, however, he was shot by his father to make it more dramatic. Dawson was an organ donor, so then when he died all of his organs were given to someone else. That person happened to be Amanda’s son. Amanda in the book already knew whose heart was transplanted to her son, but her son never had to find out, but in the movie it was her son that looked into it and told his mother. The book and movie both had people in tears. It is very surprising, and fun to read. Nicholas Sparks did a great job because he related summer romance to teenagers and people in their middle ages because it goes from when they are in their forties, to when they are eighteen. I personally liked the book better, just because of all the details, but the movie was very good.
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
... Peter and Cole then had to try to heal himself by learning how to forgive, get over his anger ,and learn to have a clean mind. Over the course of the book he learned to forgive and went from having a chip on his shoulder and blaming everyone to learning to forgive by clearing his mind and forgiving himself during a dance. By the end of the book he learned how to get over his anger from beating up Peter to dancing the anger dance. He also by the end of the book he had a clear mind, In the beginning he did not have a very clear mind and let anger cloud his judgement. When Cole was on the island for the second time he learned how to have a clear mind by dancing, Soaking, and rolling the ancestor rock. Over the entire book you can see Cole changing making him to be a dynamic character which makes this book very interesting. Clean (past mining), No real meltdowns ever.
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.
The book had a few characters that I liked, but a lot of characters that I disliked. For example Yasmine was a character that I disliked. I didn’t like her because she brought pain to Paige’s life. Yasmine and Paige were best friends for months in Sixth grade. They were constantly doing fun activities together, like having sleepovers or planning each other’s birthday parties, but all that was ruined by a mistake Yasmine made. Paige and Yasmine were at a school dance, when
Cyrano de Bergerac is a classy, intelligent man who writes for a living and his role is that he serves as the gateway for Christian to be with Roxane.
I really don’t understand the scene when Cole burnt all the supplies he was given, to stay on the island. Cole was mad in this scene and poured gasoline all over his supplies and lit a match and all the supplies burnt up. I don't understand this because I don't know why you would burn the things that are meant to help you stay alive. When Cole stated “ You don’t get it do you? My parents are divorced and they don’t give a rat is I live or die” (27) It made me feel bad for him because that is the main reason why is the way he is, I hope that later in the story he finds someone who cares about him or realizes how much garvey cares about him. I dislike his parents because they just became drunks and treat Cole poorly, which is unfair and not right for his parents to do. I think if Cole realized that he is doing the same thing his parents are doing to him, to others such as when he beat up the boy from school, Cole had mentioned that his parents had beat him up and no he is beating up kids at school. I noticed a lot in the story so far
In conclusion, Troy is significantly different from Amanda through his aggressiveness manner, resulting in Amanda being a better parent because of her more polite but a determined character. These two characters have similarities and differences, but both lead their families to ruin, however in some ways certain family members benefit. For example, Tom, who finally leaves Amanda and Laura or Bono who is now a dependent person or his son Cory, a proud marine.
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
One of the main differences between the book and movies are how Penn and Krakauer interpret Chris McCandless and his story. In the book the story seems to focus more around examining and understanding Chris and his life, whereas the movie shows his life as more of an
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.
David Henry is arguably the most influential character in the story; his decision to lie to his wife and tell her that one of the twins she had just delivered, Phoebe, died at birth when in reality he sent her away due to her Down Syndrome changed the course of multiple lives forever.
One major difference in the movie that was not in the book was the starting scene of the movie was set in the moor with Sir Charles being attacked by the Hound. In the book the starting scene was when Watson and Holmes had just found a walking stick that had the initials C.C.H. on it. I think that the movie starting scene was more informative because it let you know about what was happening and it also gave some more suspense to the film.
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.
For a long time, when anyone thought of a war movie, they immediately thought of Darryl F. Zanuck’s, The Longest Day. Cornelius Ryan, who was the author of the book by the same name, and happened to be a D-day veteran himself, wrote the movie. The book meticulously recreates the events preceding and during the invasion. It is filled with detailed descriptions of multiple occurrences during the invasion. It explains everything from mass attacks on beaches and towns to humorous anecdotes. The book wasn’t exactly a story involving characters, and neither was the film. The Longest Day is more a story of tragedy, glory, and courage surrounding one very important day. And even though mainly American and English filmmakers produced the movie, the movie and book both portray the Germans fairly. But the film added so much to the story that the book could not. Without some of the stunning visuals that the five (Zanuck went unaccredited, but was said to have directed over half the movie) directors put in the film, it would have been impossible to comprehend the scale of it all.
The book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone differs from the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in many ways. Most of these differences include characters and scenes. The two ways to discover this Harry Potter adventure are to either read the book or watch the movie. In fact, a person would want to read the book if they wanted the entire perception of the story and all of the information inside; whereas, a person would want to watch the movie if they wanted a rough sketch of the story. The two have dissimilarities but the person choosing to read the book or watch the movie is in charge of what they want to have. That is, the entire story or just a rough sketch of the story.