Which did you enjoy more, the movie version or book of To Kill A Mockingbird? Explain.
What were some of the differences you noted in the movie (examples, scenes that were in book but not in movie)? Why do you think the director of the movie left certain scenes out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I liked the book better. The movie I felt left too many scenes out, I also could understand and relate to the book better. The movie left out a lot of scenes, one of those would be Dill coming back from Meridian, and finding him underneath the bed. The director might have left certain scenes out because he/she thought it would be better to make the movie straight and to the point. Maybe have the movie without all the other little non important scenes.
ReplyDeleteBL
The movie To Kill A Mockingbird is the perfect complement to the book. The progression should be to read the book first and then to see the movie. The movie does leave out several scenes, most likely because of time contraints. However, after reading the book, those scenes are still in our mind and become part of the background of the story. Seeing the movie without reading the book would lessen the impact of the story. Seeing the movie after reading the book allows you to visualize the scenes and reinforce the reality and power of this story. When I finish this book, no matter how many times I read it, it leaves me wanting more. The movie fulfills this desire. Mrs. S
ReplyDeleteI like the movie better than the book because #1. they picked the casting very well, the houses and characters were almost IDENTICAL to what I pictured in my head; #2. it moved at a comfortable pace, not too slow, not too fast; #3. it provided info. about the town while keeping up with the action. In the movie Mrs. Maudie's house didn't burn down, and I thought that the fight scene in the movie was a little lame.
ReplyDeleteI prefered the book to the movie as the book was more detailed. The movie re-arranged the order of events such as showing the rabbid dog scene earlier, and changed the Scout's ham costume. The movie also skipped the actual play. I think the director left these scenes out as the book was long, and I supoose the play scene was unnecessary. Long movies sometimes cause viewers to sleep.
ReplyDeleteI liked the book more because the movie left some important seens out. The movie didn't show Miss Maudie's house burning down.
ReplyDeleteI think the book was by far better than the movie, as always. A movie can never include all of the details of the book, and capture the same feel.
ReplyDeleteI think that the book was better, even though it was slower. The book expressed much more, but the movie helped to visualize the story and make it feel more realistic. To Kill a Mockingbird is a long story over an amount of time, and the movie obviously had to cut many parts out. Some parts that were cut were all the scenes that occurred inside the school, the Snowman, the fire at Miss Maudie's, and when the boys went swimming. Many of these parts were cut because it was easier and the main theme of racism and the story could be expressed without those scenes.
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say that I liked both equally. In the movie they left out plenty of parts that were in the book. Like the old lady who dies whom Jem reads to, and Aunt Alexandra. I think they left out these parts because of time, and the director possibly thought It wasn't that important. So yah, I can't really say which was better. Though in the movie it was hilarious when they showed Boo behind the door.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both the book and watching the movie, I have to say that I enjoyed the book more. When we started the movie, I imagined the characters being much different. If you read the book you knew that it included more detail, and you began to know that characters personalities more in depth. In the movie their were a bunch, of what I thought, important scenes left out. Some scenes included: Miss Maudie's house burning down, Jem and Scout going to Mrs. Dubose's house to read to her, Dill running away, the three kids sneaking into the backyard of the Radley's lot, etc. I think the director left out these scenes, because if he hadn't the movie would have been hours long. He needed to summarize it, but also the chronological order he put the scenes in made more sense to me than in the book.
ReplyDeleteC.E.
The movie was made to mostly concentrate on the trial and the finch children growing up. The book of coarse was about the same thing but it went more in depth with the lives of Scout,Jem,and Dill. Both served their purposes and I say that both are classics in their own. I do not possess an opinion of which was better.
ReplyDelete-Matt B.
I liked the movie better although it left out some scenes. i felt like it captured more emotion like in the Boo Radley and trial scenes all though i would've enjoyed seeing the fire scene. I think the author left some scenes out because they wouldn't help the plot out. J.S.
ReplyDeleteI found the book to be better than the movie because it was more detailed, and the characters were much more developed. Some of the scenes that they left out wouldn't have actually added much to the plot, but would have made the movie more interesting. For example, the 'snowman' and fire scene were eliminated, as was the fight scene with her relatives.
ReplyDeleteMH
I liked the book better than the movie. I pictured some of the characters differently. One difference in the movie is that Dill stayed with Ms. Stephanie. In the book, Dill stayed with Aunt Rachel. I don't know why they would change that. I feel like the book had a better explanation of Scout's thoughts.
ReplyDelete-KM
I liked the book better than the movie because, and this is by no means the director's fault, in the book you have a deeper understanding of how the characters feel, especially Scout. But in the movie they had almost no way of conveying the characters' inner thoughts. There were also a few scenes that where different from the book. One thing was that in the book the beginning is a bit slow and you don't really get into any action for a few pages. But the movie covered about three chapters worth of action in the first few minutes.-NS
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the movie because it was visual and I could acualy see what Macomb Alabama looked like in the 20's. I also preferred the movie because we didn't finish the book
ReplyDeleteI liked the movie better only because we didn't read the entire book, though I bet if we did read the full book I would have liked that better.
ReplyDelete-RW
I liked the book better because it gives you a better look at Scout's world than the movie does and allows you to feel like you know Scout better, or on a more personal level than you could just observing her actions on the screen. I liked the occasional Scout-Calpurnia conflicts where you could also get to know Cal better, even though she doesn't have a very talkative role. The director most likely cut this out for the time or fluency of the movie. -R.M
ReplyDelete