Watch a Book on the Big Screen

Honors English I Extra Credit 2017

 

Is Hollywood running out of original ideas? It might be hard to argue that this isn’t the case given the number of films in recent years based on novels and comic books. The Marvel Avengers franchise has earned $4,938,269,569 in the US market and $12,500,929,951 worldwide.  One might be better off asking how Hollywood’s appropriation of written works has affected them.

Avengers

Do movie versions add to the written word by providing a visual element?

Does the movie industry actually increase the number of enthusiastic readers as a 2012 article in the Atlantic notes? “If a movie gets more people to read, great; if avid readers get to see their beloved characters on the big-screen, that’s a boon too” (Doll). Check out the entire article here. On the other hand, movies are an entirely different experience; while reading requires us to become involved and use our imaginations and bring our own experiences into the book, movies lay everything out for us. In an editorial for The Guardian, one writer noted, “Films are great, but they just don’t have the same…inclusion that books have. You’re merely an observer.” I encourage you to read the entire article here.

So, here is your first six weeks extra credit project:

This project fits with this six weeks clearly as we study To Kill a Mockingbird. We discussed how Harper Lee respected the movie version of her own novel, so we know that movie versions can, indeed, live up to the novel. Think of a book that you have read that you have also seen a movie or televised version of. How did the movie compare to the novel? How was the experience of reading the novel different from watching the movie? Why do you think the movie version was different from the novel? What do you think the on-screen version added t or took away from the written version of the story?Finally, how do you feel about this trend for Hollywood to scavenge the best sellers list to find material for the big screen? Once answers start being posted, join the discussion. The more involved you become in the discussion, the more credit you will get.

As always, I will go first so that you have a good idea of what I’m looking for. Just pattern your discussion after mine.

 

Gone with the Wind

Gone with the Wind CoverIn high school, I read Gone with the Wind seventeen times. That’s right. I read all 1034 pages of that book seventeen times in four years. I loved that book! I still do. Somehow throughout high school, I managed to have not seen the film. I had, of course, seen pictures of Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable as Scarlett and Rhett; they were on the cover of the second copy of the book that I bought, but I hadn’t seen the film. Finally, though, I rented a VHS (Yes. I’m that old.) copy and watched it. I loved it, but it was not the novel I had read so many times.

Even though the movie was a little over three hours long, there is obviously no way to put everything from a 1034 page novel in any film. I have seen this over and over in film versions of books. Filmmakers have to cut for the sake of time. In Gone with the Wind, I expected major elements to be cut. Scarlett lost an entire husband, children. I was fine with that. I liked the casting. I can’t even think about GWTW without seeing Vivien Leigh as Scarlett.

The images of the antebellum South were the same romanticized, if unrealistic, views as those presented in the novel. the point of GWTW is not to present a realistic view of the antebellum South; it is about loss of innocence; it is about how in many ways that picture of the South with Southern belles and gracious gentlemen was never as genteel as we remember it because it was propped up by slavery, but that’s another discussion entirely.

I had the opportunity to see GWTW on the big screen when the movie theatre in Gatlinburg (Yes, there was one here once upon a time.) showed it, and the scene of Scarlett and Melanie making their way through the field hospital was stunning. As the camera gradually pulled out to show the full horror of the hundreds, if not thousands, of injured and dead, I watched with my breath held.

That was over thirty years ago, and I still recall it as one of the most stunning images I have ever seen on screen. That scene drove home the horror of the war and how those two previously sheltered women had changed in a far better way  than the novel had.

On the other hand, the very last scene of the movie felt all wrong to me. In the novel, Rhett is developed as loving Scarlett deeply, being willing to wait for, endure anything for her, do anything for her. Until the very end when he is simply broken by her constant rejection. He isn’t angry. He is simply too tired to fight for her any longer. His famous last line in the novel is simply, “My dear, I don’t give a damn” after she tells him that she has discovered that she actually loves him; he’s just too tired to care any longer. In the movie, he rather sarcastically says, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” as if he’s won a contest. To me, that rather said that the director never understood the dynamic between Rhett and Scarlett.

Now it’s your turn. Tell me about a movie version of a book you’ve read. It doesn’t have to a movie that you felt did not live up to the book. Many movies do add much to their books.

The Nitty Gritty

  • Only three people can do a single written work, so check the comments; it’s first come-first serve.
  • The final due date is September 7, 2017. Absolutely no comments posted after that date will count.
  • All comments are checked by me before they are posted, so if you don’t see your comment right away, it’s because I haven’t had the chance to read and clear it for posting.
  • These are public comments. Do not put any information in your comment that you don’t want to share with the world. If you don’t want your comment shared, let me know in the first line, and I will not post it.
  • PROOFREAD! Your comment will be available for anyone to read; make yourself look smart!
  • Enjoy this project!

 

Advertisements

82 thoughts on “Watch a Book on the Big Screen

  1. In 3rd grade, I read the book Mr. Popper’s Penguins and absolutely loved it! When the movie was released, I was pumped to see it. Within the first five minutes, I realized the movie version was much different than the book. For example, in the book Mr. Popper was a poor married painter, but in the movie he was a rich divorced businessman. Being the 3rd grader I was, those differences disappointed me. However, by the end of the movie, I forgot about those differences and it is still one of my favorite movies today. Reading this novel was different than watching the movie because my imagination created the images for the characters. If I read the book again, I would think of the characters in the movie.
    The movie version was different from the novel because producers probably think a wealthy businessman is more interesting than a filthy old painter. The movie added more humor because Jim Carrey played the main character and I laughed out loud multiple times. In the book, the characters didn’t make me laugh out loud, but I still enjoyed the book.
    I think it’s great that producers are making new movies about classic novels. My generation enjoys watching movies, so maybe producers making new movies will encourage us to read the classic novels. The only problem about recreating novels is producers sometimes change the story a little and might leave out something important. If you haven’t seen or read Mr. Popper’s Penguins I highly suggest you do.

    Like

    1. This is an excellent analysis! I have actually never seen nor read this, so I’m going to check out one or both when I get a chance. (I’m going to be read quite a bit of school-related material right now!)

      You made a great point about movie producers using classic books. Do you think that this draws in a new group of readers who might not otherwise discover the books?

      Like

      1. Yes, I do think that it draws in a new group of readers who probably wouldn’t discover classic books. Most teenagers automatically think they will not like old movies or classic books because they aren’t our generation’s books and movies. I have never seen Gone With The Wind, but now that I have read your analysis, I would love to!

        Like

        1. Thank you! I completely agree with you about new generations thinking that older works would not appeal to them, and sometimes a classic work is very dated, and the movie version even provides an update that makes it more accessible. I think this may have been the case with the Batman movies. The original comic books probably would not appeal to many young modern readers.

          Like

          1. That’s true, most teenagers would think comics are silly because they aren’t popular like they used to be.

            Like

  2. The Fellowship of the Ring

    About five years ago, my family bought a collector’s edition blu-ray movie set: The Lord of the Rings complete trilogy. My siblings and I used to gaze at the collector’s box; the heroic, unfamiliar characters and the mysterious maps piqued our interests and ignited our imaginations. It was in vain that we begged our parents to let us watch the movies and delve into that world, the suggestion of which so intrigued us. My parents were firm: we all must read the books in order to watch the movies. My sister and I immediately began on The Hobbit, and I was much encouraged after easily finishing it. I next began on The Fellowship of the Ring; after reaching page eighty, my ten-year-old imagination began to slack, and I abandoned the tale of the hobbits for more engaging literature.
    As I grew older, I tried several more times to finish the The Fellowship; each time the book managed to find a crack in my seemingly impenetrable fortitude. My siblings, meanwhile, in a burst of Tolkien interest, asked again to watch the movies. Despite my incompletion of the series, my parents finally gave in to our demands. We began the film series, and my fascination and admiration of the world Tolkien had created rocketed exponentially upwards. The Lord of the Rings had become a subject that I had to learn more about; the movies were not enough; I had to read the books. I finally did it. I was drawn into a reading frenzy that did not cease until the last page of the last book, The Return of the King. The movie and book forms of The Fellowship of the Ring were the most meaningful to me, as they were my first step into Middle-earth. I view the movie and the book as separate entities, each with their own subtleties, yet bound together to document the story of the hobbits and their unforgettable journey.
    The first noticeable characteristic of The Fellowship of the Ring movie is its prodigious length. The first novel of the Rings trilogy is actually documented by two movies, The Fellowship of the Ring (FOTR) Part One and Part Two. Both movies are two and a half hours long, and together they take up a whopping five hours for a 479 page book. With all that time for the movies to work with, I expected the book to follow rather closely in plot, and, for the most part, it did. The major characters are all there; the hobbits and their companions run, fight, and travel in a similar way, and Gandalf is still lovable Gandalf. What makes the movies different from the books in my mind is their emphasis on separate parts of the story. FOTR Part One ends at the forming of the Fellowship of the Ring, the group of warriors who will accompany Frodo Baggins to Mordor to destroy the One Ring of Power. In the book, this scene does not occur until around page 325, well over halfway through. This simple division shows that the movies put more emphasis on the part of the story from the creation of the Fellowship until the end of the book. The movies display these parts, such as Boromir’s struggle with the influence of the Ring and the riverside battle between Saruman’s orcs and the Fellowship, in marvelous detail. While reading the book I found myself anticipating that same level of detail, only to be disappointed.
    However, the movies fall utterly short of expressing the other part of the book, the hobbits’ journey from the Shire to Rivendell, the place where the Fellowship is formed. FOTR Part One fails to document several details of this part, even leaving out the hobbits’ meeting with an elvish party, their journey through the Old Forest and the Barrow-downs, and even their meeting with possibly the most mysterious Lord of the Rings character, Tom Bombadil. Instead, FOTR Part One chooses to document the pursuit of the hobbits by Sauron’s malevolent slaves, the Nazgul. While the hobbits in the book avoid the Nazgul at all costs, never really coming face to face with them, the hobbits in the movie are chased closely by the phantoms in nail-biting scenes.
    The differences in the movies and the books are perfectly understandable: the movies are geared toward audiences craving action and suspense, whereas the books are meant to completely document the journey of the hobbits in a practical and realistic sense. Since the movies skim through and change much of the slow first part of the book and highlight the battle scenes and treacherous journey of the second part, they are intended to engage movie audiences and keep their attention. The books, on the other hand, were written by an author who had a complete, real, and deep understanding of an entire fictional world, teeming not only with monsters, fights, and adventures, but with everyday experiences of friendship, happiness, and beauty. To those disciplined and dedicated readers who can soldier through the relatively dry parts, the books in the end offer an eye-opening view of Middle-earth, and our own world as well. Tolkien, who does not have to deal with an easily bored audience, has the ability to delve deeper into these subjects, which make The Lord of the Rings one of the greatest fantasy epics of all time. In my opinion, the movies and the book offer completely separate experiences; however, these different threads combine to weave together the breathtaking tapestry of Tolkien’s magical world.
    As far as the movie industry in general, I feel that Hollywood’s use of popular books as movie topics is perfectly natural and understandable. If a book is well written and becomes popular, there is no reason it should not be made into a movie. It would be foolish to pass up the massive income that is sure to follow the production, and it would be almost disrespectful to the book not to recognize its success and not introduce its plot to a wider audience. As the Atlantic article suggests, either way it is a win-win to make a book a movie: some, like me, may be inspired to read the book, and others, like me while viewing the Tolkien movies a second time, may rejoice to see their favorite book made into a movie. I disagree with the sentiments expressed in The Guardian: of course the movie version of a widely successful book is bound to go wrong if it is compared directly and exactly to the book itself. Instead, the movie should be viewed as separate from the book. If movies were made to mirror a book exactly, they would (A) be too long and (B) not feature any ideas separate to those already presented in the book.

    Like

    1. I also disagree with The Guardian. I believe that each work, whether book or movie, must be judged on its merits (or occasion lack thereof) within its own arena. As you pointed out, movies cater to audiences’ need for suspense and shorter attention spans. I have often enjoyed reading a book after seeing a movie version to delve further into the characters’ lives.

      I also think this may be a good place to point out that in the world of movie making, each page of script (including stage directions, sluglines, etc) equals approximately one mere minute on screen, so audiences who are anticipating even a relatively short 200 page novel to be the same on the screen would be in for a marathon viewing experience if that book were to be translated without major changes.

      I enjoyed reading your analysis! Great job!

      Like

      1. I’ve never thought about novels turned into movies would be hours long. That is so interesting. Now I understand why they leave out parts.

        Like

    2. First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed reading both the Lord of the Ring’s trilogy and your analysis. I was disappointed that Tom Bombadil was not included in the Fellowship movies because he was one of my favorite characters. I agree that the films would not have done as well had they included all of the details presented in the book. However, I feel that it is the movie writers responsibility to follow the plot as closely as possible, while still having a reasonable length. If the movie plot differs from the book signifigantly, it was not done well.

      Like

  3. I don’t remember how old I was when my dad gave me his copy of The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan. It seems like the Percy Jackson series has been apart of my life since I could read. So you can imagine how happy I was when Dad told me there was a movie.
    Quite frankly, the movie let me down. The movie’s plot was nearly an entirely different story than the book. In the book, the main characters have to make their way across the country to California, fighting monsters along the way. Percy (the narrator) receives three pearls to get him and his friends out of the Underworld. However, the movie version is mainly focused on Percy and his friends going to three different states to get the pearls.
    I understand that there’s only so much content you can fit into a movie, but the directors didn’t even get the basic plot points right! I could go on and on about my issues with this film, although there are a few things I appreciate about the film. For example: Percy’s sword and the way they portrayed his water powers. My favorite scene is the fight between Percy and Luke; Percy explodes numerous water tanks!
    Many fans of books hope for a film of their favorite books. Hollywood directors recognize that granting their wishes means profit, but they often come short of what the fans want. Personally, I’m fine with books being made into movies- as long as they’re done right.

    Like

    1. What exactly do you mean by “right”? What is the most important component of the novel to be translated into the movie for you? Is it the characters? The themes? The plot points? Expand your idea.

      Like

    2. I feel another big element of the reason the movie was awkward is because the story had to be rushed. Cornelia Funke once wrote, “Some books should be tasted, Some devoured, but only a few should be chewed and digested thoroughly.” (Now that I think about it, Inkheart would have been a great book to do for this assignment) Sometimes movies take a book out of pace, and that can make the story seemed drug out st some parts and rushed at others. This is the case with The Lightning Thief in my opinion.

      Like

  4. For a movie to be done right, I want the basic plot points to be the same. Like Cait said, some parts have to be left out for practicality’s sake. However, a good director should know what parts are too important to leave out. Another thing required for movies to be a success (in my opinion) is for the actors to properly portray their characters. For example, in The Lighting Thief, the main characters are preteens who were played by young adults; that bothered me tremendously. People who don’t like to read have lower standards of what a good movie adaptation is compared to those who do like to read. Maybe this is why I’m so picky about books-turned-movies.

    Like

    1. I agree, Lauren. Reading a book about children around the same age as me saving the world gives me confidence. I love reading about a character I can relate to. When the movies conveyed Percy as an adult, it was a different experience for me. It wasn’t as exciting or empowering.

      Like

    2. I wouldn’t say that people who do not enjoy reading have lower standards of a movie, in fact I say that you have a partial bias to this belief, but hey who doesn’t? Just because one doesn’t like to read doesn’t mean that they cannot understand a basic plot and it’s points and good acting.

      Like

      1. I also agree with Hunter. Many films today easily reach the level of literature and require very active viewing. One such example that comes immediately to mind is Lost in Translation, and exploration of loneliness in modern society.

        Like

  5. Books by Neil Gaiman I have read are always amazing. Once of which, is called Coraline , which has an amazing movie counterpart. All scenes, but one big one that is left out, are conveyed perfectly on the screen. It has a beautiful animation style that attracts many movie-watchers to spend time watching this movie. Every frame of this movie has a lot of work put into it, from the smallest of backgrounds to the terrifying scenes of spiders and webs.
    Coraline is about a little girl, Coraline, arriving into an old house. She has wacky neighbors, which include: two retired actresses with many dogs (Miss Spink and Miss Forcible) , and an old performer (Mr. Bobo) who runs a mouse circus, however this does not amuse her very much. She is very bored in this old, dead place. One day, she finds a door in the wall. She hurriedly opens it, looking for adventure, and learns what’s behind it: a brick wall. However, one night, she wakes up to realize that the brick wall is gone. She crawls through this door to see a different world. Everyone is an alternate version of oneself (they are called the “other” version, for example she has an “other mother,” and a “mother.”), but better for Coraline, all of which have buttons for eyes. She eventually realizes that this “beautiful,” world is nothing but a façade, and see’s that her other mother is trying to swindle her out of her life.
    In the movie, everything is done very well. It still shows how terrifying the book is, maybe even better, The dialogue is perfect, and the voice actors fit all of the characters, One part that they left out was a horrifying part of the book. Coraline falls into the basement of the “other world,” and sees her other father. The other father throughout the book plays the roll of one that is under control. As the reader, one starts to feel bad for him. He turns into a disgusting, mutant and tries to trap Coraline, This exact plot twist and very scariness did not make into the film. I can understand, for it was more towards children. Otherwise, the movie almost matched exactly to the book, with the exception of “Wylbie,” once of Coraline’s neighbors..
    The effects of the movie were different for its time. Coraline came out in 2009. Most popular movies used more “traditional” styles, like Ponyo, Princess and the Frog, and Up (well, actually Up was more trying to use 3d models,). Coraline used puppets, which meant every character requires many models. The film required over 450 people working on it, one of which was Althea Crome. Althea used knitting needles as small as human hairs to make sweaters for Coraline and clothes for other characters. The soundtrack adds a good element of shock and fear. This attracted many people, to the point that by November 2009, the film had grossed $75,286,229 in the United States and Canada and $49,310,169 in other territories. The fact that a movie could roll in that much money shows that the animation, story-telling, design and soundtrack played tribute.
    Coraline shines a light, and is, in my opinion, one of the best movies to be. You could watch the movie and later read the book and still get a shock factor and get caught up with the story, and vice versa.

    Like

    1. I love Neil Gaiman’s work; I especially enjoyed The Graveyard Book. I like that you pointed out that even after watching the movie, a reader would still be in store for surprises in the book. Since you enjoy this style of animation, I’d like to recommend Kubo and the Two Strings. It is visually stunning, and the story is fabulous. It has an almost unparalleled 97% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It isn’t from a book; I just loved it so much I’ll take any excuse to recommend it.

      Like

      1. I certainly agree on the fact that the animation style is beautiful, I think the best part of Coraline was the depth of the story. The whole story gives of the vibe that there is a subtle plot, but you have to did to find it. So many nooks and crannies of this movie are unsearched, leaving us with an experience where we want more. For example, the way the end is left open to imagination (SPOILERS AHEAD!) as the cat still travels to the other world of the Beldam leaves it open for so much thought on both the book and movie. For anyone interested in this, I would recommend checking out, The Theorizer who does an amazing job of lookig at all the hidden details in the movie specifically.

        Like

  6. When I was in third grade, I saw the commercial for “The Hunger Games” come out. The barbarous content seemed absurd to me. Why would a government want to make its people fight to the death? I thought that I would never want to read or watch “The Hunger Games”. In sixth grade, my classmates proclaimed how great “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” was. I was so convinced that this series was so great, so I picked up the first book and started to indulge into its content. The Capital picks its tributes by a lottery. If one’s name is drawn, they would have to compete. Katniss’s sister, Prim Rose, is drawn. In an act of courage, Katniss volunteers for Prim, making Prim safe from harm and putting Katniss in jeopardy. For the boys, Peeta Mallark is chosen. They are rushed to compete and forced to partake in many activities leading up to the Games. Then, they are dropped in an arena. Katniss and Peeta are then the last people standing. They both almost commit suicide, because the Capital lied. The Capital said that two people can win the Games if they are from the same District. Unfortunatly, they revoked that rule. In an act of rebellion, Katniss and Peeta almost commit suicide. Then, the Capital makes them victors.
    For the most part, I thought the movie did a great job of going along with the book. There was one scene that I thought that the movie did better than the book. In the book, Katniss gets the Mockingjay pin from Madge Undersee, the mayor’s daughter. In the movie, Katniss gets the Mockingjay pin from a black market and gives it to Prim Rose. The Mockingjay pin is very important to the series, it is very symbolic later in the series. I liked how the movie portrayed this scene better, because it shows how close siblings can be. Their sisterhood is very strong and this a very touching scene. In the book, Madge is just an acquaintance. Katniss and Madge were not close at all. Other than this scene, I liked the book a lot better than the movie. I was a little disappointed that the producers left out a few scenes, but I understand that they couldn’t fit all of that content into one movie. Another reason why I liked the book more than the movie is because you can feel what Katniss is going through. You know what she is thinking at all times, you do not know what she is thinking in the movie. You can feel her emotions, her joy, her sadness, and her anger. However, I thought the movie did a great job of portraying the characters. The characters looked exactly like I pictured them when I was reading the books. Each character’s traits were displayed perfectly in the movie. The only thing that was different in the movie was that Madge was not in the movie at all.
    I think that it is great that Hollywood is making movies like “The Hunger Games”. It was so successful that it proved that dystopian movies can work. Dystopian books really interest me, because they predict what the earth will be like many years later. I love that Hollywood is starting to make these types of movies. I hope that Suzanne Collins continues the series, because I love this universe so much.

    Like

    1. I loved these novels. I consumed each novel as soon as it was released. When the first movie was released, I was afraid it would disappoint me. While I don’t think the movies lived up to the books, I did enjoy all except the second to the last, which I just found boring. In spite of some pacing problems, I do think they did a fantastic job of showing us what this world looks like, especially the bizarre over indulgent life in the capital.

      I love the point you brought out about the mockingjay pin! You’re so right; this is such an important symbol, and the movies did a great job of demonstrating this and preparing us for how it develops.

      Like

    2. I agree with your statement about books showing a character’s emotions in more detail than the movie. Books go more into more depth than movies. When I’m reading a book I use my imagination to add on to what the characters feel, but when watching movies there is usually no need to use your imagination.

      Like

  7. In 2014, when The Fault in Our Stars came out in theaters, It was one of my favorite romantic dramas. Last year I read it and it is now my favorite novels. After I read the book a thought I should watch the movie again and see which one I liked more. Although it is still one of my favorite movies, it was awful compared to the book. Some of my favorite parts, that I thought were huge in the book, were left out in the movie. Like Samuel said, If they would had put every detail that made the book so good in the movie it would have been way to long, so I understand why they left them out but I was a heartbroken when it wasn’t as good as the book.
    In my opinion, one of the biggest parts of the book that they left out in the movie was when Hazel, her mother, and Augustus were in the Airport and Augustus disappeared for an hour because he didn’t want all of the people looking at him as the kid with cancer or the kid with a hurt leg like they always do. Then when they got on the airplane he gave Hazel a kiss on the cheek and Hazel got mad, so he kissed Hazel’s mom and explained to Hazel that it was just a friendly gesture. For some reason they thought that it was okay to just skip over that whole scene in the movie.
    Although I just explained what parts of the movie made me extremely angry, it was a great movie. The book and the movie were both very passionate, emotional works of art that I truly loved and highly recommend to read and watch.
    In today’s world I think producers turning best selling novels into movies is a great idea. Teenagers are all about technology, and the world is all about going fast and always doing something. I think movies are a great way for someone to be introduced to a great book. Just like me, if I had never fell in love with the movie version of The Fault in Our Stars, I would have never read it. Some people will take advantage of being able to watch movies because instead of having to take time to read a book they want to just go watch a movie and figure out what happens all at once.

    Like

    1. I loved the novel The Fault in Our Stars, much to my surprise. In fact, I only started reading it to kill some time, but I got so involved that I ended up buying it. What drew me into the novel was the strength and nobility of the characters. I had expected a typical teen tear-jerker. (Obviously I wasn’t familiar with John Green’s work at that time.) Instead, what I found was a mature exploration of deep topics.

      I admit that I did not watch the movie. From the trailers, it looked more like what I had expected from the novel.

      Like

  8. I have always loved sci-fi. I enjoy anything from Firefly to Star Wars. I am also an avid reader, so naturally I am drawn to books like The Search For Wondla and The Giver. Knowing this, my dad suggested Ender’s Game to me. I agreed to try it and from page 1, I was enthralled.
    Even when Ender was a small child, he exhibited remarkable bravery and smarts. He was accepted into Battle School to learn to protect the galaxy from the opposing alien race- Buggers. Ender’s hateful relationship with his brother, Peter, and his loving, sympathetic relationship with his sister, Valentine, led to some fascinating character development. Ender excels in his classes, gets into a few fights, and learns how to win any battle he comes across. I loved reading about Ender maturing; beating his adversaries in the simulations, and meeting new people, be it friends of enemies.
    Now, you can imagine my excitement when we found Ender’s Game on DVD. One of my favorite books adapted to the big-screen! However, I was slightly disappointed. In the movie, Valentine and Peter are hardly seen at all, even though they have a huge influence on Ender in the book. I understand this may be a time issue, though I think they could have shown his relationship with them to a greater extent. This would have explained Ender’s personality more; such as his violent outbursts and his compassion.
    The book gradually reveals that the Earth is at war with the Buggers, allowing the reader to understand the intensity of the battle through reading about different conversations and situations involving the strange aliens. Conversely, the movie immediately disclosed the severity of the ongoing battle and did not allow the viewer to value this revalation. I found that inferring and discerning the importance of it on my own added to the mystery of the novel.
    The reader sees Ender age throughout the book, however the film used a different approach by having an actor who appeared the same age during most of the film. Also, the film failed to convey Ender’s intelligence as young boy and how much smarter he was than most of the children his age and even those that were much older. Further, the book conveys that Ender’s time in Battle school spans over many years and the film is unsuccessful at showing the viewers just how much time and energy Ender puts into this experience. This was one of the biggest issues for me, as I loved the idea of a six-year-old winning all these battles. I can understand the absence of some points such as the lack of competitions and mind games. It is most likely due to the fact that the group of people going to see a movie are traditionally less patient, and too long and too detailed a movie may discourage viewers.
    Overall, the movie and the book had many differences but, on their own, were still great stories. When comparing the book to the movie, however, it seems as though the film has unreached potential of being much, much, better. That’s coming from a fangirl though, and I would watch a six to ten-hour-movie if it had all the information and drama presented in the book. Sadly, though, such a movie would not likely have as big a turnout of spectators and would not bring in enough money to make a decent profit. As usual I feel that the book was far more entertaining, but the film did a great job of conveying Ender’s Games’ drama, surprises, and general adventure feel. By itself, the movie is a captivating story that describes a similar experience; Ender’s Game in Hollywood’s own words, if you will. If the movie business continues to turn my favorite books into great movies, then I am strongly in favor!

    Like

    1. First, I also love Firefly! I’m a big sci-fi fan, so of course, I loved Ender’s Game! This is one of my favorite science fiction novels (well, one of favorite 50 science fiction novels.) I was actually worried about the film because I enjoyed the novel so much, and because I’ve lost faith in Harrison Ford.

      To me one of the key factors in making the book work was the age of the children, and with an older child as Ender… well, the loss of innocence would be skewed, and it seemed like the ending (no spoilers!) would have a very different impact.

      The novel had quite a strong anti-war message, with the war being boiled down to a literal game. Did you feel that the film was anti-war as well?

      Sometimes I feel that a movie really just takes the title and primary ideas from a novel, and I thought that might be the case with this one. It sounds like it was more true to the original concept than I had envisioned.

      Like

  9. Undoubtedly, one of the most popular series of novels for children is Lemony Snicket’s, A Series of Unfortunate Events. The books follow the Baudelaire siblings as they go from relative to relative, trying to avoid Count Olaf, who is after them to take and steal the Baudelaire fortune. Although the books aren’t phenomenal, the thirteen volumes of the series have sold ridiculously well. Although I’ve only personally gotten through the first four before giving up, the series is well established as an idiosyncratic way of writing, a word which here means “peculiar”, and “distinctive”; and managed to add new mystery and was able to keep the books as individuals, as none of them feel like a worn story with a new coat of paint. It was only a matter of time before directors came in.
    These books have had 2 adaptations to the screen. The first was a nickelodeon movie released in 2004. It major funds behind it, and big names like Jim Carrey. It did super well in the theaters and has an excellent rating, but it left fans disappointed. The writing had a huge dip in quality, dialogue-wise, and the plot was misshapen, jumbled, and changed. All in all, it wasn’t a great experience for the people who wanted an adaptation of the book.
    The movies made up for most of this however with tone and theme. I cannot think of a single thing that didn’t match the image of this story in my head. I think Count Olaf, his crew, and house was portrayed beautifully. It captured the feeling of the comedy of the book, and almost had me forgetting the fact that this is a sad story. Although more movies were supposed to come out, (each covering three books like the first did) the nickelodeon studio decided to not make anymore.
    This year, on the 17th of January, Netflix released 8 episodes for A Series of Unfortunate Events. It focused two episodes on each book, and brought in a whole new cast, including Neil Patrick Harris as Count Olaf and Patrick Warburton as Lemony Snicket. The show was immediately praised for holding up what the original movie neglected. It was almost identical to the books, with a couple of scenes added. The characters were great (although I personally didn’t like Klaus’ personality) and the actors nailed their lines and delivery, and it was overall a better experience.
    This time the thing of was the tone. It was more mysterious, a bit darker, and more serious than comedic. The biggest shift in the thematic this time however had nothing to do with tone. It was something that differed from the books, but honored them at the same time. The series on Netflix was unexpected. You were constantly wondering what would come next, and although you knew their parents were dead, or which relative was next, you were second-guessing if that’s what would actually happen regardless! For that I give the upmost gratitude to the writers.
    A Series of Unfortunate events is a strange collection of books, but at least we know their moments on the big screen and small screen decided to hold up the name.

    Like

    1. I love your analysis (especially the idiosyncratic joke)! It states many of my exact thoughts on the books, movie, and tv series. While interesting at times, I found that all the thirteen books follow a similar thread: moving to a new relative, being followed by Olaf, and escaping after a new and horrific tragedy. It is not until the end that things get interesting. I was fascinated by the tv series; its incredible acting, its alternating seriousness and comedy, and its completely unexpected but interesting plot twists all combined to make a fresh and riveting show. I recommend anyone who likes the books or the visual adaptations to read All the Wrong Questions, another series by Snicket documenting his fictional adolescent life in a similar style.

      Like

      1. I’m interested in All the Wrong Questions now. I wasn’t quite sure what it was, and since I had lost interest in the Lemony Snicket series, I just had not checked it out. Thank you for the recommendation.

        Like

  10. About three years ago I watched the movie The Outsiders. Last school year I read the book. In the book I vividly picture Pony boy and Johnny riding in Pony boys older brothers car flying down a hill on two wheels and going fast around turns. In the movie it didn’t show the detail of the adventurous car ride that they had leaving their hide out at the church and going to Dairy Queen.
    I enjoyed the experience of reading the novel more because the book gave a lot more detail on everything that happened. While reading the book I felt like I was in the scenes with the characters of the book.
    In the book When Dally gets shot he dies instantly, in the movie dally gets shot several times and dies slowly. I feel the movie was more dramatic.
    I think the movie is different from the novel because Hollywood likes to take bad situations and glorify them to play into peoples hearts to get more people to sell their movies. In the on-screen version Hollywood added more violence to Dally’s death. The book did have violence but not as much as the movie did.
    I like when books become movies because it brings the most popular novels and books to the big screen.

    Like

    1. Hollywood definitely glorifies heartbreak, violence, and trauma to play on people’s emotions. Very insightful! Did you think the focus on the violence took away from the message of the novel?

      Like

  11. 1984
    Did the creators of the movie “1984” succeed in transferring it to cinematic form? For those who have not read George Orwell’s well-known book, the narrative we see on the screen is, honestly, lacking. If all we knew of Orwell was this movie, he would be considered a futuristic writer of negative temperament and average talent. Orwell’s sharp literal evocation of the horrors to come is simply not translated into visual terms. The movie did not live up to the book in the starting and the ending. The movie did not explain Goldstein and Newspeak!
    The work’s outline is displayed. Winston Smith, played by John Hurt, the movie’s protagonist, lives a horrid life in a dirty and imperceptible future of London. Orwell published this book 35 years from the year of the title while the movie came out on 1984 which, rather, makes it lose its creativity. Faucets leak, elevators do not work, windows are broken.Everyone in the Outer Party experiences shortage of razor blades. Everyone lives under constant surveillance. Smith is scrawny, pale- skinned, dressed in a blue jumpsuit. He has a sad small apartment in a block where colorless paint peels off the walls, and hallways are loaded with trash, which is the same description as the books.
    In the movie, the starting view is an assembly in which possibly a thousand people, men, and women all dressed like Smith, are being presented a propaganda movie. A banner marked INGSOC (English Socialism) first appears on the screen, then a series of battles from newsreels. People scream with rage and cheer deliriously, all in a strangely mechanical and unpredictable way. At high points, they stand and, clenching both fists, cross their wrists with arms extended in what seems to be an X. They appear completely mindless. The book starts out with Winston rushing home trying to write in a journal that he found in the proletarian section on the contrary to the movie. In the movie, after they are displayed the propaganda film he is home writing in a journal without providing a backstory to how and where he acquired a book. What one is allowed to do and what one is not allowed to do is not thoroughly explained in the movie like it is in the starting of the book. The book states one is not allowed to have close friends, to be in love, or date nor have sex with someone he or she loves. One is basically supposed to save all their emotional energy for the Party. The things one has to do is watch the news, do the exercises (which was mentioned in the movie ), and attend pep rallies, e.g. two minutes hate.
    The end of the movie and book was similar. Orwell portrayed the gravity of Winston’s feelings strongly enough for the readers to step into Winston’s place. When they hooked him up to the electroshock device in the Ministry of Love, being aware of his abject pain, I tried to answer the questions asked. If one based his experience on the movie, he would not be able to comprehend Winston’s feelings because there is no entry for his thoughts, unless one has musophobia. The last part in the book and the movie was similar: he dies loving Big Brother. It is, plainly, missing Orwell’s splendid chapters in the novel on “Newspeak,” “’doublethink,” “INGSOC,” “blackwhite”, or on the intelligently devised Goldstein, the government’s Antichrist on whom everything that goes wrong is blamed — Goldstein representing Trotsky; whereas, Big Brother is Stalin.
    To conclude the book was better than the movie. The film did not stand up to the book at the beginning and end. Goldstein nor Newspeak was ever explained in the movie! The book is better than the movie for the reasons specified above.

    Like

    1. I agree completely with you! I love the book 1984. The movie falls quite short of the brilliance of the novel. I think you will love Animal Farm. Orwell deals with the some of the same themes in it that he expands on in 1984.

      PS. I loved the use of abject!

      Like

    2. To be honest, I really wasn’t looking forward to reading Animal Farm. However, after reading how much you enjoyed 1984 and Ms. Rains’ comment that we will really like Animal Farm, I am looking forward to reading it. I might even read 1984, and watch the movie to see if I agree with you.

      Like

  12. In seventh grade, I read the book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. Although i enjoyed the movie, I feel it left out some crucial details. One thing I noticed was the Hufflepuff/Gryffindor match was left out of the movie. Another important event that was in the book was when Snape and Quirrel met in the Forbidden Forest right after the Quidditch match, but in the movie they met in the hallway during the Christmas holiday. There were a few more differences, but I can’t recall all of them. Overall, I feel that the adaptation from book to movie was reasonable considering the time limit of the movie. In my experience, I enjoyed the book more because there were many exciting events, but also some important background knowledge.
    I believe the movie version was different from the novel because the director had to keep the length of the movie reasonable. If all the details in the book were included in the movie, it would have had to become a mini-series. In the movie it was interesting to see the director’s interpretation of the monsters and beasts from the book.
    In my opinion, Hollywood can continue to make movies from the best seller ilist. I enjoy seeing the director’s visual interpretation compared to how I see the events, details, and characters in my mind as I read. Also, if people enjoy reading the book, why wouldn’t they enjoy seeing it at the movie theater?

    Like

  13. The Giver (by Lois Lowry) was published in 1993 and won the Newberry Medal in 1994. The novel appears to have been inspired by Lowry’s father who had lost his memory as an elderly man. Prior to writing the book, Lowry realized without memory all pain is gone. So, she imagined what a world would be like where the past is no longer remembered and people were able to live in peace without fear or knowledge of reality. In exploring this idea in the novel, the reader is able to see how important memory is to individuals and an entire community. Without memory, the novel shows how important memories are and how they help us connect to our past. This is a science fiction novel that starts out in the perfect world without the things we would all like to remove that cause pain, but true world in which those things do not exist create an world where numbness, no color, and no freedom remove all sense of human enjoyment of life.

    The society Lowry depicts in The Giver is imagined as a perfect world in the beginning. It has no fear, no confrontation, no pain, no illness, or hunger. Living without these things sounds like a good idea, but in order to keep peaceful order, the community in the book has very strict rules that guide their every move from their freedoms, their passions, and their relationships with others, and their every move. The basic freedoms and simple pleasures of the life that we value are removed within this type of society. Because everyone is guided by the strict rules, the community does not even know about the possibilities of living a full and free life. Family ties and individual choice of career and personal interest is lost and there is constant oversight from the government.

    The Giver movie was released in 2014. Because the imagination of the physical community is left to the reader in the book, visuals from the movie always adds its own spin. Sometimes scenes match detail in the book, but at other times it seems that details are added that may appeal to the movie-going audience. Both book and movie are futuristic and describe a world that does not exist. Most of the changes in the movie that differ from the book are around the relationships and personalities of the characters. For example, the “Giver” has sort of a magical touch when he is transferring memories to Jonas. In the book, memories are transferred by Jonas lying face down and the “Giver” moving his hand across his back. In the movie, the transfer of memories comes from his wrists while sitting up. The “Giver” is described as a quiet friendly character who knows his place in the community, but in the movie, he has conflicts with the Chief Elder.

    Other differences are when the characters have “stirrings” they take pills to suppress them in the book. In the move, “stirrings” are suppressed with a daily shot. In the book, it is a Ceremony of Twelve that sends the children into their obligated duty in the community. In the movie, it is a Ceremony of Sixteen that moves them to their obligated duty. Some duties of other characters are portrayed differently such as those of Asher and Jonas’ mother. In both instances, their personalities are portrayed very differently in the book than in the movie.

    At the end of the book and movie, only one thing stays the same. Jonas leaves the family with his “adopted” brother, Gabriel, to keep him from being released from the community because Jonas learned that release meant to “kill” during a transfer of memory by the Giver. The relationship between Jonas and Fiona near the end of the movie all surround a love story which never happened in the book. In the words of Lois Lowry’s Introduction to the book, she states,” another medium- stage, film, etc- does not obliterate a book. The movie is here now….with starts and costumes and a score, But the book hasn’t gone away. It has simply grown up, grown larger, and begun to glisten in a new way.” It is true that movies use best selling and award winning novels to create film. I believe that the film industry makes changes to add to the story line and make the scenes maybe more appealing to the young audience and also so they can relate better to the content.

    Like

    1. I read this novel, but I never saw the film. One thing that struck me in your comment was the mention of a love story. It seems a little out of keeping with the novel. Did it not feel odd to you? I definitely understand why they added it: Love stories sell on the screen. I like that you added Lowry’s opinion about adaptations of novels.

      Like

  14. In sixth grade, I read the book Where the Red Fern Grows as a class novel. After we finished the novel, we watched the movie. I enjoyed both the book and the movie very much. Compared to the movie, you notice a lot of important details were left out of the movie that were in the book which made the movie less emotional. Overall, I liked the book better since it did go into more detail. For example, the movie did not show that Little Ann had a hard time after Old Dan dies, but the book was very detailed about how Little Ann acted when Old Dan died, which made the movie less emotional. Even though there were some important details left out of the movie, I still thought it was very good.

    I think the movie version was different from the novel because they could not possibly fit all the details from the book into the movie. There were important details that are found in the book which were left out of the movie. For example, the movie does not start with the dog fighting. This was important because, in the book, Billy sees the dogs fight and is reminded of his childhood when one of the dogs are hurt. Whereas,in the movie, it starts out with Billy’s childhood. Another example is in the book, Billy and his dogs win the coon hunting competition. Whereas, in the movie another competitor wins and ends up giving the cup and the money to Billy.

    Even though the movie lacked important details from the book, the on-screen version allowed me to see what the characters actually looked like. The movie also added to the written version of Where the Red Fern Grows by allowing you to see the places that were being described in the book. The movie takes away from the book by not allowing you to visualize what you perceive is happening, rather than experiencing the movie the way the director thinks it is happening.

    I think it is good that Hollywood is making movies about best sellers because these books are already of high interest to many people. Many of the people who enjoy reading a best-seller would also want to see a movie about the book to see the if the book can be brought to life on the big screen. I enjoy watching movies that are based on best sellers. They tend to be more action filled and this seems to be what Hollywood is all about today.

    Like

    1. What a sad book! I never watched this movie because I tend to stay away from the sad movies.

      I agree with you about how movies can take you away from a book in general, though, by putting too much out there for you.

      Like

  15. I chose to do “The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I read the book, and also watched the movie last year in Mrs. Ward’s class. The movie itself served the novel quite well in my personal opinion. It stayed true to the actual novel, which is always a good thing. I also really enjoyed the production, and also the choice of actors casted for the screenplay. Reading the novel was a different experience from watching the movie because Nick Carraway’s thoughts were a lot more frequently displayed than they were in the movie. The experience the movie brought that wasn’t present in the novel was the amazing screenplay and directing, giving the film a well thought out 1920’s vibe, which is exactly what the on-screen added to the story, in addition to the introduction of modern music, which added a likeliness to younger audiences. I am very neutral about a stance on how Hollywood is creating movies based on novels. Reason being is just because I don’t think it’s necessary to add or subtract details to plot, because it can make or break the movie if you’ve read the book before. In conclusion, I would have to say that I enjoyed viewing the film more than reading the novel, just because of the amazing production and screenplay.

    Like

    1. Did you watch the new movie or the old one with Robert Redford? I haven’t seen the new one, but I was always kind of disappointed in the old one (in spite of Robert Redford). I did see trailers for the new movie, and it had an amazing look.

      Like

      1. I haven’t seen the old movie, but I have read the book and watched the new movie. The new movie is excellent. In addition to following the book rather well, it is a complete treat for the senses that is characteristically and unmistakably Gatsby and the 1920s. The acting was also excellent, and the movie succeeded in capturing the polished, nonsensical feel of that era. I would have to reread the book and rewatch the movie to make more comments on the content, but I highly recommend the movie just for the experience.

        Like

  16. The Godfather
    In the eighth grade I read “The Godfather,” once or twice. Once I started, I was automatically hooked. The whole idea of gangsters and the mafia was so intriguing to me. After I started reading, I tried researching more into “The Godfather,” but I came up short finding that Mario Puzo got most of his ideas from an Italian author. After I finished the book for a second time, and researched throughly, I found out there was a movie. After I knew of the movie I was anxious to go to Mcays and get the movie. Once we got the movie my grandparents and I watched it. Immediately it hit me! There were so many obvious lines and characters that weren’t included in the movie. Some of the obvious things are; many characters were dying in the book but were suddenly resurrected in the movie. A few examples are; Calo, Michael’s body guard in Sicily dies along with Apollonia in the explosion, but surprisingly survives in the book. Also, Fabrizo, the second Sicilian body guard is implicated as an accomplice in the bombing, but he is shot and killed as one or more victims in the famous, “baptism scene,” after he is tracked down running a pizza parlor in Buffalo, NY. Another example is, Johnny Fontane, he is a major character in the book, due to his troubles with women. On the other hand in the movie, he is a worthless nobody who shows up at Connie’s wedding with no connections to anybody in the rest of the movie. These major setbacks of the movie are what left me in the dust.
    After I had seen the movie I was even more drawn in to the whole mafia thing, that I did some more research. Large parts of the novel are based upon reality, notably the history of the so-called “Five Families Gang,” the mafia organization in New York and the surrounding area. The novel includes many illusions to real-life mobsters and their associates. For example, Jonny Fontane is based on Frank Sinatra, and Moe Greene on Mugsy Siegel. Mario Puzo included these real-life illusions because he had some deep feeling for those characters and their real-life idols, much like Harper Lee did by basing her character Dill on Truman Copote.
    In addition the character Vito Corleone was a composite of real-life organized crime bosses, Frank Costello and Carlo Gambino. The Corleone family closely resembles the Karmazov family in, “The Brother’s Karmazov.” Both books include a powerful father, an impulsive oldest son, philosophical son, a sweet-tempered son, and an adopted step-son who is an employee. Honré de bulzac’s novel Le Piér Goriot has been the ultimate inspiration for Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather,” but most of the inspiration was for the notable lines that gained wide popularity in cinema history. Similarly, Puzo opened his 1969 novel with an epigraph, popularly attributed to Balzac: “Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” The saying is has most likely evolved over time from Balzac’s original text: “The secret of great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime which was never been found out, because it was properly executed.”
    The Cinema Production Organization, in Hollywood California will never get the movie the same as the book. Most humans today are so critical that no production will ever be good enough. And this is why production of movies can never get the movie exactly like the book. Also, books are often very long, and if a production were to use every line from a book, the movie would be five hours long! One thing I never quite understood was the making of three Godfather movies, because the book only has 446 pages. On the other hand, the book and the movie don’t have that many differences, only a focused reader can tell these differences. Even the most the critical person can say that Hollywood got it right with “The Godfather,” being closely related to the book.

    Like

    1. Do you think that this novel and movie glorify the mob? In the movie, we are pretty much forced to “root for” them. It times, they seem more like bad boy celebrities than evil, amoral criminals and lowlifes. I’ve wondered if The Godfather and later The Sopranos created a fascination for the mob that takes focus away from what they really are. On the other hand, do you think such movies and shows remind us of just how evil these people are?

      Everybody? What do you think?

      Like

      1. I confess to be absolutely no expert on the matter of mob representation in movies, but here are my two cents. I believe that the message viewers take away from those movies is largely based on their own tastes and world understanding. Younger viewers with possibly not as much knowledge of the real, malevolent threat of such mobs may be swayed to root for the exciting gangs because of their daring and reckless violence as represented in movies. Other viewers, possibly more aware of the world threat and terrible actions of such mobs, may view the movies as highlighting the negative traits and decisions of the criminals in appropriate detail. Again, I have never really been interested in or watched that genre of movies, so I hope my comment was relative.

        Like

  17. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Steven Chbosky is one of my favorite novels. Unfortunately, my family said that I was too young to read the book, but that I could watch the movie. The movie, to this day, is my favorite movie. The book, as well as the movie, explore all of the highs and lows of high school. From bullies to lifelong friends, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” just about covers all of it. There aren’t that many differences from the book and the movie, and the differences that are there, are very small. However, one major difference is that in the beginning of the book, Chbosky says that Charlie’s best friend, Michael, committed suicide. In the movie, this information isn’t really revealed until Charlie’s first high school party that he attends. Aunt Helen is a character in the book that was physically abused as a child, Charlie mentions her several times throughout the novel. However, in the movie, Aunt Helen’s backstory is rarely brought up, and you hardly know anything about it. One of my favorite things about a book being made into a movie is seeing how they cast the different characters in the book. The cast of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” was exactly how I had pictured the characters from the book. So, it was very exciting being able to see the characters come to life. The only thing that the movie took away from the book is details. The movie had to cut out several details, some important, because of time. I enjoy when books are made into movies, as long as they don’t completely change everything about the book. Thankfully, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” as a movie was not a disappointment. I was genuinely pleased with the movie, especially after I went back and watched it again after I had finally read the book. If you haven’t been able to read or watch, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” I highly suggest that you do.

    Like

    1. I know that this book and its move both were well received by critics, but I never read the book or saw the movie. I’m glad that the movie lived up to the book. What made it such a great experience for you? If any of the rest of you have read/seen it and recommend, let me know why. I might read it. (If I ever get ahead on reading and writing for my classes, that is!)

      Like

  18. When I was younger, I saw the movie “Bridge to Terabithia.” It was one of my favorite movies, but I somehow never read the book until recently. I was actually quite surprised with how the adaptation of the movie remained faithful to the Katherine Paterson’s story. This was shocking to me, since most of the book and movie comparisons I see are nothing similar. I didn’t notice a drastic difference between the two, but I did notice some details throughout the book that I found interesting. One major detail I noticed was on the subject of Jess Aarons, the main male character, and his music teacher, Miss Edmunds. In the movie, it was hinted at that Jess had a little crush on Miss Edmunds. However, I was surprised to see in the book that it is much more deep than “just a little crush.” For example, Jess loves art, but usually keeps his artwork to himself. However, she happened to be the only one he frequently talks about in a very poetic way. The book describes his feelings for her deeply in detail : “Miss Edmunds was one of his little secrets. He was in love with her. Not the kind of silly stuff Ellie and Brenda giggled about on the telephone. This was too real and too deep to talk about, even to think about very much.” He even believed that he liked her too, which was definitely not shown in the movie.
    I noticed some other small details throughout reading, such as the way Leslie Burke, the main female character, handled some situations were different between the movie and the book and when Leslie gets made fun of for not owning a television set. In the movie, she seems to brush it off and wasn’t too bothered by their antagonizing. Although in the book, she becomes very upset, and even becomes angry with Jess. Another difference was in the movie, Jess’ parents were happy that Jess had found a friend to play with, but in the book, they were concerned with what would become of him spending all of his time with a girl.
    Something I found interesting was I believe it related to the “loss of innocence” theme that we have been discussing in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” It is clearly shown when Jess has to cope with Leslie’s death at such a young age. The reader sees Jess mature in the book and the movie as time goes on after her death. He does go through a very dark time after losing Leslie, but it just contributes to him growing to be a better person.
    I loved seeing Jess and Leslie’s imagination come to life on the movie screen. The book was so detailed, it could be hard for the reader to imagine. That’s why I personally love the movie. It does a fantastic job in taking you through the magical world of Terabithia. The entire book highlights the children’s imagination, so it was nice to see that reflected in the movie.
    Overall, I was pleased with the interpretation of this book, and I’m glad its powerful message was not altered too much. I think that both the book and movie were amazing, if you haven’t read the book or seen the movie, I highly suggest it.

    Like

    1. I haven’t read this book for years. Your discussion has made me want to read it again. I believe what you pointed out about how Jess feels about Miss Edmunds is a perfect example of how movies often differ from their novels. I’m not sure a movie could really show us that kind of emotional depth unless that was the entire point of the movie.

      I’m also thrilled that you pointed out the loss of innocence in the novel/film. Many of the books you read and films you see will deal with this theme. Now that you’re aware of it, you will see it in so many things!

      Like

  19. I feel that ” The Godfather,” showed us a side of the mob that most people don’t understand. In some ways the mob was bad, but without the mob most people, over the age of 21, wouldn’t be able to drink alcohol. Even the president of the United States had relations with the mob. John F. Kennedy had relations with the mob. The “Bay of Pigs,” was almost executed by the mafia. So, I feel the book gave the mob a diffrent name.

    Like

    1. The mob’s only role in the repeal of Prohibition was the fact that they took advantage of Prohibition to make vast amounts of money and launch criminal empires that legalizing alcohol helped to stop. Prohibition was responsible for the growth of the mob, as Americans sought ways to obtain liquor illegally. Check out this article in the Guardian, “How Prohibition Backfired.” Beyond that, though, Prohibition failed because it did not help stimulate the economy as many of its supporters had anticipated, and in the wake of the Great Depression, its repeal just made sense. Check out this short article in Time.

      The Bay of Pigs wasn’t actually successful, and the link with the mafia is in reference to an offer by the mafia to assassinate Castro, so this isn’t really a particularly positive light to shine on them.

      So, in the end, any name given to the mob other than repugnant and violent criminals who seized on situations to prey on the unsuspecting and/or innocent for profit or power is undeserved, and when you research the mob in nonfiction, the fact that the mob only has one side, an evil one becomes apparent: Anything “good” they did was to gain a stronger foothold in society.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s