Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison of harry potter movie to the book
Harry potter characters analysis
Harry potter characters analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparison of harry potter movie to the book
Muggles J.K. Rowling is a famous British novelist best known as the creator of the Harry Potter series. After being rejected many times Rowling finally was called by Editor Barry Cunninghan who gave her the opportunity of publishing Harry Potter’s book number one. In this paper I would be discussing the similarities and differences between the book and the film of Harry Potter’s book number three. Difference number one starts at the beginning of the movie. In the book Harry receives a clipping from the Daily Prophet that is supposed to help him with his future. On the other hand, in the movie Harry receives a cake that reminded him that it was his birthday. In difference number one the film omitted Molly’s pride in Percy’s becoming Head Boy. …show more content…
In the book, Harry produces a copy of Hagrid’s book called Monster. This scene is completely invisible in the film. On the other hand in the movie, is Fudge who made the copy of the book. Difference five is about Hermione and how she slaps Draco. In the book Hermione slaps Draco when she was returning with Hagrid, Harry and Rom from a Care of Magical Creature lesson. On the other hand, in the film, Hermione slaps Draco when she is on her way to Hagrid’s hut. In the book she just slaps him. In the film, she pints her wand and him then punches him in the face. Difference number five is about Ron, Harry and Hermione’s fight. In the book, Harry and Rom get into a big fight with Hermione because their opinions were different about the Scabbers and the Firebolt. In the movie, there is no such fight. The only scene related to that topic is when Rom argues a little with Hermione. Difference six is about the speel that Hermione used to save Sirius. In the book she uses Alohomora and in the movie she uses …show more content…
These are the words of the article called Caution: Wizard at Work: Behind the Magic: The Harry Potter movie franchise has a new director and a new Dumbledore. Things are getting Sirius. An exclusive visit to 2004 's 'Prisoner of Azkaban. A we all know Harry Potter is a sequence of series that started with Harry being a child. In Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban they are experiencing their puberty. "If you look at the style of the movie, it 's darker, it 's more adult, and it has a different tone than the previous two, because the effects aren 't so fantastical. You don 't have all the colored light. You have a much, much more restrained palette” (Gordon). Cohen points to Cuaron 's fluid lensing, with its emphasis on single wide-angle shots, as a special challenge. "It makes (the effects) considerably harder, because the shots are so much longer, you 've got to think about so many more different elements. With quick cuts you can hide so many things” (A1). The whole move was a new experience not only for the actors, but also to the
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 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 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.
Just like any other book that had a movie made after it, there are always differences between the two, and The Wizard of Oz isn't any different. In the film and the story, the differences between the two are important on how they shape the story. The book and the movie have some pretty huge differences from each other including: the silver shoes, the wicked witch of the west, and how Dorothy actually went home from the land of Oz. Throughout the book the slippers are silver, the wicked witch shows up in the book one time and has one eye, and Dorothy really goes to the land of Oz. In the film the shoes are ruby, the wicked witch has both eyes and appears three, and Dorothy doesn't go to the land of oz, it was all just a dream. These are the differences that can change, and affect the story.
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.
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.
There are quite a few differences between The Lightning Thief book and the movie but there are three that I found to be extremely different and obvious. First, the most notable one is with the pearls. In the book Percy is given three pearls by Nereid. He is instructed to use them when in great need or danger. However, in the movie the pearls are hidden. The visitors who find a pearl are able to escape from the underworld and return to the sea. The second, is the death of Medusa. Percy cuts off her head in the book and it is then shipped to the Olympians, but in the movie her head travels with them upon their quest to return the lightning bolt to Mount Olympus. The third, is the character Ares, the god of war and the son of Zeus. He
Before the first Harry Potter film came out in 2001, many fans were worried that the unusual and distinctively English charms of JK Rowling's books would be lost in the journey from printed page to the big screen.
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.
It seems like every year Hollywood does a motion picture interpretation of a novel and although the movie may become a box office hit, the novel will always be much more detailed and in depth. Movie producers and directors try to fit an entire book filled with the tiniest of details into approximately an hour and thirty minutes of entertainment, therefore are forced to cut out many important details. For instance, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” a children’s literature novel written by J.K. Rowling was transferred to the big screen in 2001. Though the movie stayed “…surprisingly faithful to the novel,” according to Roger Ebert, it still lacked some major details that contributed to building the magical world of “Harry Potter.”
This past March I visited Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida for the first time in years. As all things, it has changed drastically over time. Some rides remained the same, but others not so much. Universal Studios is a magical place to begin with, but add in two separate Wizard Worlds and you’ll be begging for more. As I have grown, I was never interest in Harry Potter; however, after only one day running through the Wizard World I was hooked. I couldn’t wait to get my hands on the books and movies. First, I dove into Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling. Then, to complete the first pieces in the series, I watched Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone directed by Chris Columbus. Both pieces were exceptional and I enjoyed both; however, I believe the movie is slightly better.
...magination were put into the movies, and readers got to watch the real magic unfold right before their eyes. J.K. Rowling created her characters well thought out and easy to relate to. Do you relate to Neville, forgetful and shy, yet courageous? Or do you relate to Hermione, intelligent, tough and hardworking? Or even Severus Snape, menacing, yet cunning, brave and loyal? Anyone who reads Harry Potter can usually find a character in whom to relate. Most fans will agree with what Rowling once proclaimed, “Whether you come back by page or by the big screen, Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home” (Rowling).
There are many differences between the book and movie, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The theme, plot, and characters from the book and movie are importantly different. Harry has many different adventures and nick nacks that people don't know about.
The big issue with this is that neither movie goers or people that read the books are not satisfied. They are not satisfied because their favorite scene from the book doesn’t happen in the movie or vice versa. They always want the movie and the novel to be alike. An example of a movie and a novel being a like would be Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. This movie is a “close adaptation partly because J.K. Rowling, the best-selling author of the Harry Potter series, knew that she had a loyal readership, and so in selling the film rights, she stipulated that the film stay close to the Potter text, even insisting on her approval of the director and the actors” (Desmond and Hawkes 44). J.K. Rowling continued to release the rights the of her books to be made into a movie because her readers were so happy with it. In order for the audience to like the movie as much as the book, you have to make sure it is close to the book. Desmond and Hawke say, “In talking about adaptations, it seems natural enough to talk about the author of the text and the director of the film as equivalent” (Desmond and Hawkes 44). The author of a book and the director of the film are the same because they both create