To Kill a Mockingbird
discussion
Book vs. Movie: To Kill a Mockingbird
message 1:
by
Nic
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 24, 2012 04:40PM
The movie is good by itself, but it does absolutely no justice to the book. You don't get to know the characters personally like you do in the book.
reply
|
flag
You lose the entire sequences with the eccentric grouchy widow with the rifle, I forget her name. They also cut out some transitory school scenes.
Loved the movie because of Gregory Peck's portrayal of Atticus Finch. For me, the movie brought all the charaters to life. But the book contains so much more emotion. My favorite part of the book is when Jem has to read to the old lady. It is a great lesson that Jem learns about courage. That is the kind of thing that is missing from the movie.
i will never compare the book and the movie, both are good by itself. lose too many sequence from the book in the movie, but the movie make it easier to digest.
I definitely preferred the book. The movie was good, especially Gregory Peck's performance, but I can't sit through a three hour movie without getting restless. I was able to read the book at my own pace; which really didn't take that long.
Both the movie and the novel are incredibly moving and smart. I don't think it's possible for a film to capture the intricate layers of meaning and emotion of a classic like To Kill A Mockingbird. That being said, I am still captivated every time I watch the film. Out of curiosity, what films do live up to the great books you've read?
Atticus Finch's portrayal by Gregory Peck was exactly how I imagined it to be when I was reading the book. Peck played it to perfection. But on a whole, the book was a lot better than the movie. I liked the movie too, but the book was exceptional.
Cher wrote: "Out of curiosity, what films do live up to the great books you've read? "Godfather. It surpassed the book. The book was very good too, but the Lucy Mancini spoiled the classic status for it. And for a part, Jhonny Fontane's part must have been cut off from the book. Excepting that, the book is very good. The movie is super.
Lord of the Rings. Both the Book and Movie are in the same league. Tolkien created a masterpiece. And for those us who can't get enough of it (there are millions of us), the movie's a super gift by Peter Jackson. It's not easy to make Lord of the Rings into movie. It's a miracle, it's been made into an equally good movie.
Jaws. The book was very good. Steven Spielberg's movie surpassed it.
Schindler's List. Again, Spielberg made an exceptional movie out of a Booker prize winning Novel. The movie is better than the book.
Exorcist, I liked the book as much as the movie. Both are very good. Some say the movie is better, but I liked both.
Gone with the Wind. I absolutely loved the Margaret Mitchell's Novel. Once again, like with Lord of the Rings, an equally good movie was made out of it.
Cher wrote: "Both the movie and the novel are incredibly moving and smart. I don't think it's possible for a film to capture the intricate layers of meaning and emotion of a classic like To Kill A Mockingbird..."For me Million Dollar Baby was a fantastic book-to-movie translation that can only be done by Clint Eastwood.
To me, movies rarely capture the essence of the book, but To Kill a Mockingbird is close...
i didn't like the movie, but enjoyed the book!
I liked both the book and the movie. The book is one of my all time favorites. I have read it many times.
The movie is terrific, but doesn't capture Harper Lee's wry humor.
I think the book was better but the movie was really good too. Haper Lee's writing style was what made story so moving and powerful. Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus was like the book quite yet powerful.
I liked both, though to me the book has such a stronger impact because the characters have time to develop more.
My impression is shaped by my seeing the movie several times before reading the book, but I think they compliment each other unlike many film adaptations and their source material.
This is my all time favourite book. Movies never have the depth of a book but I thought both were wonderful. It's still a beautiful film to watch and I just love the gentle tone of Gregory Peck's voice.
I love Gregory Peck but have never actually seen the movie version of "To Kill a Mockingbird", maybe because it's one of my all-time favorite books & I didn't want it destroyed by Hollywood.Cher wrote: "Out of curiosity, what films do live up to the great books you've read? "
SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION based on Stephen King's novella.
I just watched the movie! and what can I say? Book, book, book. As usual, I found the book way more fulfilling. However, I also enjoyed the movie. It did a really good job with the characters, especially Atticus. I liked the fact that a lot of the dialogue was kept exactly the same as in the book.
This is one of those few in which the movie does virtually everything right. It's not as good as the book, just because a book allows one to go into greater detail. But the book doesn't have Gregory Peck, either.I still take the novel, but it's closer than a lot of other adaptations.
It is interesting, because the movie was set so many years ago, and for once, it is an excellent movie. The book is excellent and my all time favourite. How many times in this modern age, have I heard or said the book is so much better, Nearly 100% of the time. So, I think both of them have their credits for the right reason!
I watched the movie first, as a kid, and when i read the book, as an adult, it made the reading so much better.
For me, it is difficult to say (at least some of the time) that one is better than the other because they are quite different mediums. My thought is, "How do they stand on their own?" It is obviously hard not to compare and, nine times out of ten, I would probably prefer the book over the movie. To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the few where the book and the movie were, to me, equally powerful in their message and their quality.
Loved the movie, adored the book.
The book is wonderful, really charmingly written, and of course more complete. There's more background on Atticus' family and the history of Maycomb.But the movie does include extra scenes not part of the novel, usually to condense some lengthy descriptive part of the narrative into a short piece of exposition.
There's a scene early on in where Scout is reading in bed until Atticus glances at his watch and declares it's late, they talk about how Jem will receive the pocket-watch when Atticus is gone, and how Scout when old enough will have her late mother's jewellery.
Atticus leaves the room, and there's a beautifully poignant dialogue between Scout and Jem (off-camera)
Scout: How old was I when Mama died?
Jem: Two.
Scout: How old were you?
Jem: Six.
Scout: Old as I am now?
Jem: Uh-huh.
Scout: Was Mama pretty?
Jem: Uh-huh.
Scout: Was Mama nice?
Jem: Uh-huh.
Scout: Did you love her?
Jem: Yes.
Scout: Did I love her?
Jem: Yes.
Scout: Do you miss her?
Jem: Uh-huh.
Meanwhile, the camera pulls back to show the exterior of the house and slowly drifts down to reveal Atticus sitting on the seat outside, deep in thought, clearly missing his wife.
Then the mood changes with the arrival of the Judge and a discussion of the Tom Robinson case, but that scene is one of the most subtly heart-breaking moments I've ever seen in a film.
How can I choose between to great works of art? I feel in love with the story when I saw the movie; I gained a new respect for Gregory Peck as an actor. I then purchased the book and read it in no time flat!I now own both the movie and book. I adored the tender reality of person and place in both the book and movie. I have sit with kleenix when I read the book or watch the movie.
They left out my favorite scene when Jem loses his Pants and they say he lost at poker.
I like both the book and the film.
I read the book back in the day before my mother took me to see the movie in the theater. I say they are both good in their own way. If you are not a reader, the movie gives enough to understand the people in the story. But the book is so full of color and depth and you really feel how hot it was to live and work in the hot south back in my mothers home state. She loved the book and the movie. I have read this book so many times. And watch the movie once a year or more. I even have in on cds with Sissy. Just sayin'..........
I saw the movie long time ago and I loved. Book came to me letter and become my favorite book of all time. When I taught there is nothing better I bought CD with Sissy and that for me is the ultimate pleasure.When I drive long distance I have Sissy with her beautiful southern accent as company and I loved it. When I read same text it is not the same effect when someone with this great voice does it.
For me is; CD with Sissy reading, book and then the movie.
@Nela, I agree. Sissy, book, movie.!
This was a book I had to read at school. It had absolutely no resonance with me and I absolutely hated it. Sorry to buck the trend but I doubt I will ever give it a second chance.
Books you 'had' to read at school often have that effect. Such a shame. I loved this book and still do. The film was good too, but not as good as the book.
I am surprised anyone 'had' to read it in school. Sorry, it was so hard for you, @Tallburt. I was a child of a Mississippian, so when she gave me my own book and she had her own copy, I guess it just made it be my favorite book of all time. Well, next to Mrs. Mike. lol Just sayin'...... Peace. :0)
I didn't like the movie at all. It jumbled up all the events and cut out to many of them. I also feel it didn't capture the innocence of the book. Seeing everything from Scouts POV gives a powerful statement on the nature of prejudice that the movie lacked. All in all I thought the movie was a big disappointment.That being said, I almost never like movies based off of books I've read.
@EileenIt was a prescribed text and I was probably 14 or so when the class read it. The other factor was that being British the context was largely lost on me at that time so the essence of the book did not capture me as it seemed utterly irrelevant.
For me school destroyed a great deal of literature as I found it so dull at the time. I have never returned to Shakepseare, First World War poetry, Thomas Hardy, Charles Dickens or Oscar Wilde because we 'had' to read them.
I went back to this book recently after seeing Beasts of the Southern Wild. That film was shot from the height of the child protagonist which made me wonder what To Kill A Mockingbird might have looked like if shot this way.This of course led me to re read the book. I found it was still as brilliant as ever. This book changed my life and I think it still resonates with those of us who want a role model for honourable behaviour and sticking to our views in the face of great pressure.
The book was best.
I first saw the film as a young girl; most likely 10 or so. It moved me so much that I picked up my sister's copy of the book and started to read it. That proved frustrating (it was the first "grown-up" book I'd tried reading), and I gave up. I next read the book as a teen and, with the memory of the film, and especially with Gregory Peck's image as Atticus, I loved the book. Both film and book have been revisited periodically and both are loved and appreciated for their individual merits. I cannot ever imagine a remake of this classic film.
Tallburt wrote: "This was a book I had to read at school. It had absolutely no resonance with me and I absolutely hated it. Sorry to buck the trend but I doubt I will ever give it a second chance." I feel the same about the book, but I have to right a compare and contrast paper on it.
Cher wrote: "Out of curiosity, what films do live up to the great books you've read? I loved both the book and the movie!
Two movies that I think were much better than the books were "Forrest Gump" and "Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe.
Books are always better
The books are always far better than the movies. This one is not as exception.
I loved the book and hated the movie. However, the casting was brilliant, both Gregory Peck and the juvenile actors were exactly what I envisioned.
What made the movie so great and up to my expectations was the perfecting casting of the main characters, and brilliant acting by Gregory Peck.
Both were great - I am studying the book and the film for my English Literature GCSE and my friends and I can almost quote Gregory Peck/Atticus' speech in the courtroom word for word. I did enjoy the film, but like others, thought it could never quite get to the same intimacy as the book. I'm curious why there hasn't been another movie made of 'To Kill A Mockingbird'? I mean, I know the first one was fantastic as were the actors, it's such a classic film. But surely a remake would be interesting? Maybe longer with more detail? I saw the Regent's Park Open Air Theatre production of the book recently and loved it.
The movie was excellent but I have to say that I preferred the book. The book had a lot more details, which I loved. book: 75%
movie:25%
Absolutely one of my all time favorite books! I have loved it since I first read it in elementary school. But I also love the movie, I think Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus was spot on and gibed with how I pictured him in my head. If I had to choose between the two, of course I'd go with the book because the places it took my imagination and emotions could never be completely captured in a movie.
Horton Foote changed my life, and I will never stop saying it: To Kill A Mockingbird stands alone as the one literary event in which the film and the book are both incomparable works of art.I miss you, Mr. Foote.
Shelley
http://dustbowlstory.wordpress.com
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
