Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Book vs. Movie: Which one wins?

I think that the book is way better than the movie. I think they should have shown how Jem lost his pants and Dill said they had been playing strip poker. I think this would have added a lot of humor and given you something to laugh at. I think that the movie is going really fast through the beginning of the book to get to the big case of Tom Robinson. I liked how the book eased you into Maycomb at first, then it introduced the people so you got to know what everyone was like, then it slowly started talking about the Tom Robinson case getting you used to what you are going to see. However, the movie is rushing you into everything, which would confuse a person if they hadn't read the book. Also, the movie said that an Aunt Stephanie took care of Dill instead of an Aunt Rachel. If you hadn't read the book, do you think you would understand the story characters and all?

12 comments:

Tourettesguy said...

I think I would still understand the basic ideas of the movie if I hadn't read the book. A complete introduction like the one provided in the book would take up a lot of time in the movie, and the makers probably just wanted to get to the time when the case takes place. In the book's introduction, about three years were covered, and it would be hard to show the kids aging that much in a film under two hours long. Still, the story of Jem's pants would have been a lot better if they went into more detail like the book.

silent one said...

I agree the book is better than the movie, but books are always better than the movies because they provide more description. I think it would confuse a person who hasn't read the book. The book is better than the movie!

Benjamin Disraeli said...

I think Gregory Peck is completely wrong for Atticus, but that he is sure fun to watch. Ahh, dead people...

The World's Greatest said...

The book is a lot better than the movie. I think movies a lot of times take away from major detail and description. It's as if a 5 second blip in a movie can be two pages worth of text in a book.

floridaprincess said...

Definitely the book!!! Of course, we haven't watched the whole movie yet...

Kaminous_the_Great said...

I totally agree. The book gives more detail in the characters on how they look and feel at the moment of something happening. It also gives more detail about the scene in general, the movie just rushes it, as Andie Sachs explains. I am really disappointed in the movie, and usually the movies off of books are so different and cut a lot of things out.

Rashad said...

The movie of course. How could it not it has Gregory Peck. I liked the movie better because these book bored me till i wanted to die.

Dr.Gonzo said...

I think that so far, the book is better then movie. I also think that if a person hadn't read that book they would still understand the movie. I think the reason why we think the movie is going so fast is that we have read the book and there for know what the movie is leaving out. If a person hadn't read the book, they wouldn't know what was missing and the movie wouldn't seem so fast.

Jesus Christ said...

I think that the book is better than the movie. The movie seems to be going to fast. I understand that the movie needs to be interesting and move faster than the book because if it followed the book it would get boring. The book lets you imagine what is happening and in the movie gives you another person’s interpretation.

honey said...

I enjoy reading the book AND watching the movie. The movie can actually help you understand the cahracter's role better.

honey said...

*character

Miley Cyrus said...

I definitely agree the book is so much better! I guess it is almost always true that the books are better than the movies. If you didn’t read the book you would miss out on a lot of important things that really play into the book. The movie seems to just jump right into the main story of the book, which they have to do because it is a movie. But just by seeing the first part of the movie you really don’t get the feel of Maycomb and the characters that you get from reading the book. I don’t think that if a person just watched the movie they would want to read the book because of the little things that are left out that really add to the book. But overall I am a fan of the book over the movie, but I guess that it does help seeing the movie if you have read the book just to see how it would play out.