Joy Luck Club Novel vs Movie Essay

In "A Terribly Strange Bed" the main part of the story is set in the

In the book it didn't paint a lot of pictures in your mind. The book was better detailed. It had more information and more better at explaining. But the book didn't have the power to paint a picture in your mind

It is important to show many differences between the book and a movie, but it is also important to keep some certain things alike so they will be similar and have the same point of view.

There are lots of things that are the same and a lot of things that are different that make the book and the movie different and the same.

The Joy Luck Club centers around eight individual women who are all of Chinese decent. Four of the women are mothers and the latter four are each individual woman’s child. The mothers are immigrates and the daughter are first generation American Citizens. All four of the mothers

When stories are made into two different mediums the book typically does a slightly better job in representing the heroic journey, because the movie directors add things that degrade the hero’s fame established by the book, interpret things differently

For Sarah’s creative writing class she has a unique project. She is supposed to take her short story and present the same information as non-fiction.

When comparing the book and the movie, the differences greatly outweigh the main plot points of the original story. This is understandable, seeing as movies and books have vastly different criteria to conform to. Some of these differences were of no consequence and had no bearing to the main story, and some actually improved upon the original plot line.

Many of y’all think that a movie is better than a book because y’all don’t like reading. Neither do i, but in this specific movie and book I liked the book a little better. The reason why is because the book gave more detail about certain situation. For example when lennie imagined about Aunt Clara and the big rabbit. That was not in the movie at all.

Bella Adams discusses these problems in relationships between generation gaps in “Identity-in-difference: Re-generating Debate about Intergenerational Relationships in Amy Tan’s ‘The Joy Luck Club.’” Adams agrees that relationships between mother and daughter are difficult but vital to understanding one’s identity. In “Diasporic Self, Cultural Other: Negotiating Ethnicity through Transformation in the Fiction of Tan and Kingston” Li Zeng notes, “The assurance of self-definition through connecting with her cultural roots is Jing-Mei Woo’s resolution to her ethnic dilemma” (7). When Jin-Mei is staying in the hotel she says she finally feels what her mother meant by “activating” her “genes” and “becoming Chinese” (Tan, 270). She does not feel this sort of primal connection to her Chinese culture until she is immersed in it.

In my sixteen years of living, throughout my life, I’ve mostly been told that that the book is better than the movie. From Harry Potter to the Hunger Games, most readers tend to feel that the book is able to capture more. More description, more development, more dynamic, they would say, just to name a few. Now I’d never really fallen into that presumption, as I prefer to give each book and movie separate chances and never truly compare the two. Until I read It’s Kind of a Funny Story.

One example that lots can't get over is that in the book, Thomas, the main character, immediately remembers his name when he arrives at the glade, but in the movie, he doesn't remember until the night of his arrival. This set a bunch of people on the wrong impression because that's one of the first things shown. There was another minor detail that shows W.I.C.K.E.D in the book, but it shows W.C.K.D. in the film. There's also another surprising thing which is that in the book, Thomas and hte ther main character, Teresa, can communicate telepathically. Another massive thing that most people found annoying which was different, Teresa was in a coma for several weeks, then triggers The End, but then in the movie, she was only in a coma for a few days.

ʽThe book was betterʼ is pointed out by Robert Stam as one of the most common made statements comparing a novel and itʼs cinematic adaptation. Therefore, a clear focus on the loss rather than a gain can be detected.1 The notion of fidelity between a novel and the adaptation seems to generally have a high importance to the masses; one can be disappointed if the adaptation does not meet personal expectations such as narrative, thematic and aesthetic features.2 Fidelity between a literary and a cinematic work might, according to Stam, be impossible due to automatic differences in change of medium.3

Almost everyone has heard the phrase “the book is better than the movie” but is that always true? Sometimes movies stick close to their book counterparts, but other times they are only inspired by them. Take Psycho for instance. Originally a book by Robert Bloch, it was turned into the movie of the same name by Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho). The movie, deemed a classic, just does not seem to give the same feel the novel does. After all, the main character, Norman Bates, had some traits changed for the film version. Secondly, the film failed to portray the full extent of his complicated relationship with his mother. Furthermore, the infamous shower scene was changed for the film, making reading the novel a better choice than seeing the film.

As far as I am concerned, I appreciate those moving stories in the book version. As William Shakespeare said: there are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people’s eyes. The author thinks highly of this film version, but many watchers cannot bear the film at all. No matter other people hate that you like the film, we cannot copy the emotion, which you get from the film to others. The world is so big and the emotion is so complex, feel free for what you are feeling about one film or something