Book vs Movie, Disappointment in the Difference of Gone with the Wind

Comparing the book to the movie you can clearly tell what certain things are different. For example, Sydelle Pulaski worked for Mr. Westing in the movie but only talked over the intercom. This not only caused a lot of drama but more depth to the plot. Also, Crow didn’t go to jail but they did talk about most of the consequences of her going to jail. This made a little bit more serious and emotional instead of just letting it go.

Instead, they added events to the movie that never happened in the book, and some of the events that occurred in the book, never occurred in the movie. For instance, in the novel, Owen dies a lieutenant, and in the movie, he dies as a boy. Also, in the movie, Simon speaks out loud during Mass and gets punished by the reverend. This never happened in the novel. I liked that the movie shows how powerful Owen and John’s friendship was; you could really tell they cared about each other.

For instance, in the book Joppy knew Albright; Albright knew Todd Carter; Todd Carter knew Richard McGee as well as Matthew Terrell whereas in the movie every character denied knowing each other except Albright and Joppy. Another noticeable difference is that in the book Frank Green, Daphne’s brother ends up murdered and in the movie he lives and they both end up moving. The third noticeable difference is a character name change from the book to the movie; Matthew Teran in the book is Matthew Terrell in the movie and he ends up being murdered in the book whereas at the end of the movie he’s running for mayor. A fourth noticeable difference is the pier scene. In the book Albright and Easy meet at the Santa Monica pier and in the movie it is the Malibu pier. And the last most noticeable difference between the book and the movie is that Mouse knows Daphne Monet or shall we call her by her real name Ruby Hanks; however, in the movie the audience never finds that out. In the movie the only true thing you get to know about Daphne is that she is both black and white. Therefore, due to the many differences between the book and the movie it is confusing to the audience since it is almost like dealing with two different stories because of the plot inconsistencies.

Normally, when a movie is made about a story in a book the two stories are not exactly the same. The movie is adjusted by adding small details or leaving out some parts in order to make the story more

The first difference that caught my eye was how there was no cat, in the book there was a cat named, Sammie, and Sammie always got stuck in one of Billy’s traps. But in the movie

The book and movie are completely different. It 's like comparing apples and oranges. (I 'm assuming that you used the newest version with Guy Pierce). The biggest difference is probably the ommision of Haydee and Maximillien and Valentine (three of the main character) and the addition of Jacapo. Jacapo does is in the book, but he is never a large character.

The book and the film were both simular, and yet different in many ways. An example would be, in the film, Ponyboy was walking to the drive-in and meeting Cherri and Marcia. Although in the book, Ponyboy began his journey by telling the readers about his experience about being jumped by the Socs and being threatened. The director probably had some options to pick from to leave out from the movie, and the director chosed this to leave out. Leaving out the part where Ponyboy was jumped was an effective move because without the experience Ponyboy was lost and helpless because he did not know what to do when he and Johnny got cornered in the park by Bob and other Socs.

A minor difference between the movie and the book was concerning the scene about Sir Henry going to the moor. In the book he was pretty upset that people were trying to keep him from going there, but in the movie he showed the least bit of emotion. This was not a major impact on the story but it definitely added character to Sir Henry. In the movie Sir Henry was somewhat timid and in the book that scene showed he was not afraid to stand up for himself.

When we saw the movie and the book and saw the movie, there were a couple of thing that they did not mention or did in the movie. In the movie they cut out some thing from the book. They did not really put everything they said in the book into the movie. They also did not really get some people personal feature. Here are something that were different from the movie, than what it said from the book.

The task of creating a film based on a work of literature sends filmmakers on a challenge of sorting through which parts of the book are incorporated into the movie. The creators had to find a way to turn almost over 200 hundred pages of paper into about two hours of time. Consequently, many details of the original writing are left out, shortened, or changed entirely to “fit” into the script. This concept is shown in the movie version of the book, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, which tells the story of young Huck Finn as he travels down the Mississippi with a slave friend. Differences and similarities are apparent between the two adaptations of the story but both remain true to the original plotline. Even though certain literary elements of a novel, such as use of time, events of the story, and the characters, are altered, the main plotline is unaffected as a literature-based film is produced that meets specific real-life constraints.

Characters: Although there were a reasonable amount of characters in the story, there were only two that were important and consistent throughout the book. The others didn’t have much of an impact into the story.

There are many differences in both the book and movie, unfortunately, the reader does not get insight on what the new house looks like. The viewer of the movie gets insight on what is going on outside of the apartment,

We see in the movie that the directors had to make many changes. The changes usually included cutting non important scenes, for the book was to long to keep everything in. I feel that they picked correctly with most of the scenes, but I do think that some scenes were important enough to get in. While dropping some scenes they also dropped some important characters and themes, some I believe were essential in the book.

Gone with the Wind is one of my favorite love stories of all time. Margaret Mitchell wrote the beautiful story in 1928 and first published in 1936. The book is one of the best-selling novels to this date. Shortly after the book was published, it sold over one million copies within six months, as well as being awarded the Pulitzer Prize. The book immediately caught the eye of a young producer named David O. Selznick who immediately purchased the film rights for $50,000. The movie was just as big of a hit as the novel. Gone with the Wind won ten Academy Awards out of thirteen nominations. By today’s box office records, after adjusting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is still the most successful film in box office history. (IMdB) This

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