The Great Depression Movie Vs Book

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

But which one is better? I'll be talking about the features of the character traits, settings, and plot of both the book and movie, to show which one is better. In my opinion, I like the book better and here are the reasons why. To begin, I'm going to be talking about the characteristics of both the book and the movie. In the book, the characteristics and their traits were put in very good detail.

- 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

“Books and movies are like apples and oranges. They both are fruit, but taste completely different,” Stephen King once said. Truley, books and movies are most of the time the same, but sometimes one rises above the other. In this situation, the movie rises over the book. While reading a Raisin in the Sun it seemed like they stayed in the same spot the whole time. In the movie they showed us and explained all of the places that they mentioned in the book and it gave me the larger picture. The movie a Raisin in the Sun is better than the book because it has more details and gives us a better visualization.

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.

The book is much better than the movie this will explain in the following paragraphs as to why.

Also, the book is more descriptive than the movie since the characters and their personalities are described in more detail. Example : What type of person is Bruno. It's easier to understand the plot line too. As well as, how

The movie was entertaining but the but the book clearly the better of the two. Why do I like the book better? This is because the book had better details and it gives us a deeper understanding than the movie. My other reason for liking the book better is because it is explaining people's lives with real pictures and images of their past when the movie had to make people act as if the actors were the actual person,but they’re not. The book also has more information that the movie may have left out. The reason that the movie was made so the better of the two must be what had started it all.

To Kill a Mockingbird was directed by Robert Mulligan. This movie and book shows how hard life was back in the Depression and how hard it was to live. Everyone considered themselves poor because they were. You would try to do anything to make money but it was so difficult. Making 5 cents was so good back then but now that would get us nowhere.

The book is always better than the movie which is a true statement when we are talking about the novel; To Kill a Mockingbird by, Harper Lee. The movie version of To Kill a Mockingbird lacks key scenes, as long with, misinterpretations of people in the book compared to the movie. The story is about two kids, Jem and Scout, facing prejudice with their dad, Atticus Finch. The novel is preferred rather than the movie by its setting, characters, and plot. The novel has additional acts that the movie does not contain reasoning why the book is better than the movie.

When has a person said a film was better than a book? Probably never. The film adaptation often removes important scenes from a book or critical background information that’ll justify the story’s plot. That isn't that case when comparing Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World to Mike Judge’s Idiocracy. Both manifest a problem of their society through the use of satire. Satire is a method of ridiculing a problem to people to prompt them to protest for change. Although Brave New World’s universe is a polar opposite of Idiocracy and their satirical plots effectively evoke denunciation of problems, Idiocracy more persuasively expresses their overarching satirical message.

My second reason why i think the movie is better than the book is because you could see what they are going through and see how they are feeling. In the book it doesnt say or show how they feel or what they are experiencing and in the movie it shows what they have to go though and what they are feeling and it's not the same as the book. This shows that the movie has more emotions and feeling than the book does and it shows more detail than the

Due to the text’s complexityz and the author’s peculiar writing style, it took me quite a while to get into the story, thus reducing my reading speed considerably. But, once I was one third into the book, I started to really enjoy it and, as the narrative became more and more complex, I became aware of how much the book and the movie differ.

Would you rather watch a movie or read a book? I believe the movie is better than the book because the sound effect, the action scene, and characterization.

Everyone is aware that books have a richer backstory and more intrigues than a film, and that is natural due to the length of the book compared to the film. But why does everyone always say that the book was better than the film, even though, the film is way more focused and fast paced? Is it really that big of a difference between the book and the film? I will use this compare and contrast essay to try and explain in which way the Oliver Twist book is both very similar and very different from the film adaptation of Oliver Twist. I will also try to explain why people generally think that the book is better than the film.