In the book, Sodapop's horse, Mickey Mouse had a strong personal bond with Soda. It was shown that Soda could not keep Mickey because of how poor he was, and how he could not take care of it, and it was sold. While in the film, the director cut this part out, but had Two-Bit wear a Mickey Mouse shirt for the horse's sake. Money is a big issue in making the book and the film exactly the same. Money limits what goes in and what should be taken out, such as Sodapop's horse. Though in this case, Sodapop's horse was not a big change that could change everything in the plot, and was more easier to take out then the bigger events. Mickey Mouse only related to Sodapop and how he came to be who he is
The novel Of mice and Men is an engaging story, and is filled with climatic moments to keep the readers interested. The book does a phenomenal job at individualizing the voices of its characters. The book's description of the characters' makeup helps give the readers a vivid image of their appearance. The movie Of Mice and Men lacked the ability to give the characters a distinct voice. The appearance of the characters was mediocre at best in the movie, whereas the book gave the characters a sense of liveliness. The book was far superior to the movie in many aspects.
Moreover, these two films also have differences that can be contrasted. First, the non-animated version is much longer that the animated version. The non-animated version is close to three times as long as the other. This is due to the extensive background that is given in the non-animated film. For example, in the non-animated version, they discuss the Grinch’s past and how he arrived in Whoville. Also, the non-animated movie introduced many more characters that have distinct qualities.
Some differences between Shakespeare’s play and Disney’s movie are the ages of Simba and prince Hamlet, Simba’s story is happy overall, most of the characters in “Hamlet” die but only one died in “The Lion King”, Simba lives happily ever after while price Hamlet died in the process of his revenge, Simba has help with his friends while prince Hamlet was forced to keep things to himself, prince Hamlet’s mother got remarried to her husband’s brother, and obviously, the species are different.
There might not be that many, and the prince and princess may still get their happily ever after, but reading the Brothers Grimm version would taint anyone's fond memories of growing up on the Disney version. It's the small contrarieties that would make them feel different about the tales, such as the ways the evil queen tried murdering Snow White, how the princess had revived, and the truth behind the queen's death. Growing up on the originals would have given readers each a sense of reality and no false hope about life and love. More might have appreciated the sappiness because it would've been better preparation for the road ahead. Next time watching a Disney movie, research it. Is there an original version? If there is, compare and contrast the two. It's surprising how many kids' tales have been censored to be appropriate for the target
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.
Another reason that the original is preferable is because it seems to flow better with the overall themes of the novel. One of these themes is how people expectations differ from reality. Pip's expectations never seem
The 3 major differences that were seen are the shattering of the conch, the pilot’s presence, and Ralph’s attitude towards Piggy. Due to these major differences the novel left a greater impact on its readers than the movie on its viewers. Seeing the movie and as well reading the book, personally the book was a better. The book has a very different approach of that showed these 3 major differences to their full extent. Out of the two though, I would choose the book as more pleasant and
The little mermaid original story is dark and Intended for a more mature reader than the Disney movie the little mermaid. The original l story is sad and gruesome while the Disney movie is full of cute sea animal and singing. In the Disney movie, Ariel is naturally beautiful and has everything she could ever want, while in the original story she has to work for it, her grandmother quotes ‘’you must put up with a great deal to keep up appearance’’.
What’s the difference between the book and the movie? Mice and men is a great book but it is a little different in the movie. Believe it or not many very important things happened in the book that did not put in the movie.
The change from the 1756 version to disney’s is character difference. Belle, the Inventor in Emma Watson’s is just as bookish, but in disneys she’s an inventor as well. The movie also gives a deeper meaning to why she’s spurned by the villagers: She’s the only woman in a town that’s skeptical of change and knowledge. No longer the original story’s main inventor, Kevin Kline’s Maurice is now an artist and music-box maker whose home is full of half-drawn portraits.
In The False Prince by Jennifer A. Nielson, a young orphan boy named Sage resides in Carthya. He is known for his rebellious, defiant, and thieving nature. In Carthya, a monarchy government is in place meaning, the kingdom is ruled by the king and his family. Apart of the king’s court of advisers, is nobleman Bevin Conner, who collects Sage and three other orphan boys (Tobias, Roden, and Latamer) for one secret mission: impersonating the long lost Prince Jaron. While Latamer is murdered after trying to leave, the other boys must compete to be chosen as the new king. As a nobleman, Conner is among the few people that know that the king, queen, and their eldest son were recently murdered. He also knows that Carthya is on the brink of war due
Comparing the The Analects (confucious) with the Prince (Machiavelli) is something like comparing George bush and Elizabeth May of the green party. Basically the wrtitings of The Analects totally disagrees with the writings of The Prince. Confucius believes people are easily improved and taught through self promotion and development, Machaveli however sees humanity in a much different light. Machiavelli was an innovator of realism politics and believed that people of power should conduct themselves as tyrants. Machiavelli and Confucius are from totally different time periods and different places in the world. Which could possibly be the reason The Analects and The Prince are so very