Comparing King Arthur And The Knights Of The Round Table Book Vs Movie

Many people may agree that the movie was better, but personally, i think the book was better. The book let your imagination go wild, but the movie just held your imagination back by showing you the scene on a screen. Unlike the movie, the book gave a more vivid description of “The Tell Tale Heart” by telling you every single detail. That is why I think the book was more enjoyable to read instead, of watching the movie.

I think the movie is better than the book because it’s more visual, has more action, and has props.

imagination by the hand. There are not that many things that are different in the

King Arthur was an ideal person to many people during the medieval time period. He was brave, fair, fearless, supernatural, and honorable. These characteristics made King Arthur a legendary person. Many stories of the King Arthur legend exist today. These stories have many similarities and differences such as in Morte d'Arthur and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In both stories, the author's use the code of chivalry and fantasy, but one author decides to let King Arthur die and the other does not.

The story of King Arthur is widely known, either his beginnings told in The Sword in the Stone or how he led the Knights of the Round Table. While there are many version of his story T. H. White’s written version and Disney’s animated version of The Sword in the Stone are two of the most recognized versions. Most movies have the ability to embody the original intent of the book they were based upon. Disney’s movie version of T. H. White’s rendition of The Sword in the Stone, however, while portraying the correct story, does not truly convey enough elements of White’s version to be effective in telling the original story. The characterization and Merlyn’s ‘lessons’ within the movie inhibit the film from being an effective portrayal of the

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.

The movie First Knight fits the Medieval Romance Characteristics because it follows the marriage of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere and follows the adventures of knights, kings, and queens. Medieval Romance Characteristics also follows the conflict between King Arthur and Prince Malagant, who used to be one of King Arthur’s knights. First Knight takes place in an idealized world because it includes castles, kings, queens, and knights. When Lancelot gets into a sword fight with Prince Malagant, a supernatural event occurs. When Lancelot is just about to lose the fight from exhaustion, he notices King Arthur’s sword beside him and when he picks it up, there is a flash on the sword which fulfilled Lancelot with enough energy to win the fight.

- This book is a really good book not a very good movie because they have so many differences if they would have not started in the middle of the book then it would have been really good and entertaining but it just doesn't give me the vision in my head of the whole book . A movie to me is where a book comes to life and, but it still was a good movie but could have been

Finally there are lots of differences between the book and the movie. They also show that the movie was a lot weaker then then the book. I can see the movies aren't always better than the books. The books go more into detail than the movie. I enjoined the movie because it is more visual. The book was a little

The book is better because it gives more excitement and emotion. The book just explains each of the events in great detail. I don’t know about other people, but for me the more information there is, the more I understand it. And in the movie of “The Outsiders”, it does not really say much about what’s going on. For instance, when Johnny dies, in the movie, Ponyboy goes home but it does not tell how long he had been out. In the book, Pony is walking home from the hospital and a man asked him if he wanted a ride (Hinton 151). Though others might think that the movie is better because it visualizes the events that are happening. But, even though it envisions what the book tells about does not mean that it is one hundred percent better.

To me, both Tolkien and movie producers in Hollywood captured many of the different aspects and angles of the timeless classic The Hobbit. Although I pictured some scenes and characters different in my mind, both the movie and the book outdid themselves with lovely yet gruesomely fascinating detail. I myself am not sure if I favor the movie or the book better. Each did a great job of benefiting details to the story by either giving great descriptions of high quality imagery. Both the movie and the book both portrayed the story perfectly in their own ways.

I like the book better than the movie. I like the book better because I could decide what a scene would look like. For example, in the book, it describes True Son. It says, “The boy wore a brand-new calico hunting shirt. It covered the boy’s upper parts and halfway down his leggings. His hair was black and his face and arms brown as an Indian, but you couldn’t mistake the English cast of his features.” I could make up in my mind how I wanted True Son to look. In the movie, I saw what was on the screen, and couldn’t make the scene look how I wanted it

The film King Arthur differs in a great propensity with the traditional Arthurian tale. The elements which represent the medieval society and which forms the key aspect of the traditional tale, have not been included. The Holy Grail, a vital motif that is persistent in the traditional tale of King Arthur is dropped from the cinematic representation of the tale. The film differs from the tale on multitudinous accounts, for instance there is an absence of the love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere in the movie. Moreover, the film chooses to not include Camelot, Avalon and Mordred. Important characters like Mordred, the archetypical villain in the traditional tale of King Arthur is not ascribed to any significance in the film. The character of Guinevere is indispensable in the Arthurian legend as well as in the movie. However, the very characteristic of Guinevere is represented in a dynamically polar opposite fashion in both the traditional tale of King Arthur and the movie. Contrary to the ancient tale, Guinevere is no damsel in distress in the movie. The representation of Guinevere in the movie as a warrior queen who partakes in the war along with King Arthur is emblematic as it does not depict the character of a woman in the light of the gender typicality. It is an important alteration that the movie chooses to make from the traditional tale.

Although the book The Hound of the Baskerville and the film The Hound of the Baskerville have very similar main ideas there are smaller details that are different but still have an effect on the mood and plot. For example, Selden, in the book, has a beard, “‘A beard! A beard! The man has a beard!...It’s not the baronet-- it is---why, it is my neighbour, the convict’”(Doyle 193). While in the film, they discover the convict Selden is dead by a tattoo on his hand. A small detail but important for the plot. The book and the movie have many similarities and differences, both big and small, throughout both with their characters and overall mood.

The Hobbit (There and Back Again) is an absolutely wonderful classical book. In fact, it has been made into a three part movie series, two of which have already been released. The two movies that have been released will be what I am covering in this report.