I noticed that the book included much more detail about story than the movie did, like normal. A couple major differences were that in the movie there was no burning house, Jem never had to read to Ms. Dubose, and Aunt Alexandra never came to live with the Finches. There were also so many small differences like Dill's aunt's name being Stephanie instead of Rachael, Jem and Scout never went to church with Cal, and during the trial, Link Deas never stood up to defend Tom, along with many more. On the same note the book and movie were similar, because they both provided the same life lessons. For example, you never know someone until you step into their shoes and walk around a little, and that all humans are created equal. I think they made the changes to the movie in order to shorten it so that the film wasn't 8 hours long. Also, with the movie being more brief it helps make the message of the whole story short and sweet to let the viewer really understand what Harper Lee was trying to get across. Overall I really loved both the movie and book. I was surprised to see the town of Maycomb just the way I had pictured it while reading the novel. I did picture Calpurnia to be a more heavier set gal, and Dill to be a little bigger and less nerdy. But, in truth everyone and everything else was just how I imagined it in my head. I guess Harper Lee did a great job of painting the reader a picture in her amazing novel "To Kill a Mockingbird".
I think the most pronounced difference between the book and the movie to me is the fact that Aunt Alexandra didn't come to live with them. Throughout the book, Aunt Alexandra was there to be a critic to Scout's choices and Atticus', so it was strange to me. How the book was the same was I think they really put forth the personalities of each character, and they also brought the same lessons and ideas the book had to offer. As with most movies, I think they changed the movie because they needed to shorten it compared to every little thing that happens in the book, and to appease the audience. I imagined Scout to look different, so I had to get used to seeing her the way the movie depicted her. Overall the similarities between what I had pictured and what the movie provided was uncanny.
I agree, that Aunt Alexandra not coming to live with the Finches was weird. She was always keeping things civil and proper within the house. I am very curious why she was not in the film.
I think you make a great point about Aunt Alexandra and the important role she played. I think you're right that they had to change the movie to have enough time for the most important parts in the book.
Did you like the movie Or the book better?
I agree that I pictured the town of Maycomb the same way. I also really liked the book and movie. I think that Harper Lee did an excellent in portraying a common theme throughout the book.
Atticus was pretty much how I imagined him.
I noticed a vast amount of differences between the book and the movie, albeit many were very small differences. The most profound difference was that in the movie Aunt Alexandra did not come to stay with the Finch’s. I also noticed smaller details that were not the same in the book and the movie such as the fact that Dolphus Raymond was not introduced in the movie, it did not show Jem and Scout going to church with Calpurnia, Jem never had to read to Mrs. Dubose, and Miss Maudie’s house did not catch fire. Some of the changes were obviously made to make the story shorter in length so that it would be a movie of standard length, but others might have been made to avoid taking away from the main idea of the story (such as that Aunt Alexandra never stayed with the Finch’s). What was different from my imaginations was that Dill and Scout never seemed to be “in love”, and what was similar was the way that Scout acted.
I think it was crazy how big some of the differences in the book and movie were. Like Ms. Maudie's house burning, that is such a big thing to be added to the book and taken out of the movie. Also, when Scout and Jem went to church with Calpurnia, they learned a lot about the way of life among the blacks. I do understand the story-line had to be shortened in order to make the movie a reasonable length though.
The book and movie do have many differences and many of them where small. I also agree that the relationship between Scout and Dill was less romantic than friendship but they are also still so young.
I noticed when watching the movie their were a lot of really noticeable differences. For example Ms. Maudie's house was never burned, Jem also never read to Mrs. Dubose, and Jem and Scout didn't go to church with Calpurnia. I also realized that Calpurnia never came to the court room to get the children. You could definitely tell that some of the scenes were shortened in the movie because they didn't have time. I wish they would have added some more details but I understand why they didn't. I noticed in the movie that I pictured Dill being bigger and less scrawny, I also thought Dill and Scout would be more lovey towards each other. I think that Jem and Scout were similar to how I pictured them in the book.
I agree with you, they needed to add some other scenes.
I pictured some of the characters differently than they appeared in the movie, too. I also wish that more of the events from the novel could have been incorporated into the movie. Although, I would not enjoy watching a four-hour-long movie, so I understand why the film was shortened.
I agree! I imagined Dill to be tall and look older than Jem.
The fact that scenes were skipped was a little bit of a let down. It gave the movie more character and to see them not there was kind of sad
In the movie they introduced Tom Robinson’s father which in the book didn’t happen. Also towards the beginning Scout and Jem talk about their Mom which didn’t happen in the book either. We never meet Miss Caroline. Bob Ewell is already stalking Jem and Scout before the trial even begins, which is new, and kind of weird. Miss Maudie’s house never catches fire. Mrs. Dubose is on the screen for a whopping 3 seconds. No Dolphus Raymond or Aunt Alexandra or church with Calpurnia, all of these to cut down on time. It was kind of a long and boring movie already. Not bad for 1960 though.
I thought the movie left out some fairly important events. However, it was interesting how small discussions - such as the one between Jem and Scout about their mother - were added into the film.
I forgot that they didn’t meet Miss Caroline and that Tom’s dad was introduced. The movie is the same story but in a different perspective and with changes here and there.
But the themes are so very well described in the movie! Watching that movie just makes me feel so good. The build up is pretty slow though
I agree it may have been kinda a boring movie but for the era that To Kill a Mockingbird came out they did a pretty good job.
Yah I understand that they might have to take out a couple scenes when making the movie, but when they take out entire characters it just completely changes the story.
The book definitely is way better than the movie. The book gives so much details and provides you will every little thing and then the movie doesn’t even cover certain things. In the book it talks about Scout going to church with Calpurnia, Miss Maudies housing catching on fire and many more but in the movie it does not show that. I feel that they could have put other senes in the movie that were in the book and cut a little of the other scenes. I usually like movies better than books but I didn’t like this movie.😂😂
Like most novel-based movies, the To Kill a Mockingbird film was not nearly as elaborate nor meticulous as Harper Lee’s book. The film entirely omitted several impactful events, such as the tragedy of Ms. Maudie Atkinson’s home burning down, the arrival of the infamous Aunt Alexandra, and the wisdom spoken by Mr. Dolphus Raymond to Dill and Scout at the courthouse. There were many more details that were altered or excluded, most likely in order to shorten the film to appease its viewers. However, the film still incorporated the major themes that Harper Lee discussed throughout her novel, such as racism, gender roles, and society’s judgement towards the “abnormal”. Overall, I was not a huge fan of the movie. Although, I was pleasantly surprised to see how similar the setting of the movie was to how I imagined it while reading the novel. In my opinion, the book was much better than the film.
I agree the book was better. That dog scene was wack haha. And same with Dill.
Like you said, I definitely think that it did still contain the same ideas and themes as the book. I just wished it would’ve had a little bit more detail. But for the sake of the movie’s length I understand why they didn’t.
I first noticed that the movie just took some major parts of the book and not the little details. The book had a lot more details than the movie. One major part was Aunt Alexandra wasn’t even in the movie. I thought that she played an important role in the book but she wasn’t in the movie. Another detail I noticed that was missing was that Dill never ran away from home. It completely excluded when Jem had to read to Mrs. Dubose. I think they took out some of these details because they didn’t think they were as important to the storyline. I didn’t love the movie, mostly because I would rather imagine what the characters and setting looks like than to see the actor portrayals. I did think Jem looked oddly familiar to what I had imagined him to look like though.
I kinda need the movie to imagine the events but I see what you are saying when it comes to imagining it yourself.
The movie was definitely a shortened version of the book. The major thing I noticed was that the movie didn’t have Aunt Alexandra. The movie also seemed to move along faster even the trial seemed to be a breeze. The way the characters were portrayed where as close as a movie could get it. It was a different perspective since you can’t hear Scout’s thoughts and feelings. The part when the mad dog was going around seemed less dramatic than the book and the part when Scot and Jem find stuff in the knot hole in the tree wasn’t in much of the movie also. The movie did well at getting the lessons and all of the major points in the story but it is always a different experience than the book.
I completely agree with your comment about how fast the trial seemed to go past as well as the movie as a whole.
I also thought it was really strange that they didn’t add Aunt Alexandra into the movie since she was a big character in the book,
Yah I agree the rabid dog scene only seemed to take up like 5 minutes of the movie and it seemed a lot less dramatice in the movie than in the book
Aunt Alexandra was a big part of the book that I missed in the movie, it was missing and important aspect of her trying to make scout more like a lady.
There were many differences though none took away from the main themes of the book.I really like how the movie approached the book. To me the movie only added color and a realness to the happenings in the book. I didn't feel like it tried to replace the book. Since the movie was more a depiction of the events, it didn't have the unreliability that comes with having the narrator be Scout. I loved how the book depicted Atticus as a perfect person because that is exactly how Scout would see him. In the movie you got to see more of what really happen which is interesting . In the book there were many instances where Scout interprets what is happening through her innocent lens which further moves along the theme of the importance of innocence which just couldn't be done in a movie so it didn't try to.
I like how Atticus is shown in the movie too.
"To me the movie only added color and a realness to the happenings in the book." That is really well said! A good movie should do just that.
I also liked how Atticus’s character was portrayed in the movie. His personality was just like what I thought of while reading the book.
Haha, yes same that’s cool and Atticus’s character in the movie was very relatable to the one that the book portrayed!
The book of To Kill A Mocking Bird was a lot more in detail than the movie, in the movie they skip over some settings and experiences that the main characters went through. I thought that Scout was portrayed very different in the movie than I imagined her in the book. I think they cut out different scenes such as the school house, and miss maudies fire simply to save time and make the plot more simple to understand.
Scout was a lot different.
In the movie Miss Maudies house never burnt, Also Jem and Scout didn’t go to church with Calpernia, and Jem didn’t read to mrs dubois. I wish that the movie had more detail. I liked the book a lot better that I liked the movie. One of the big differences that I noticed was in the beginning when Jem and Scout talk about their mom. I wish that they would haven’t had worried so much about how long it was and put in some more of the details that were in the book.
It’s really weird with some depictions of books. I agree that the book had way better detail and I’m upset they cut certain things out.
One big difference that I notice between the book and the movie was dill in the movie versus how I pictured him in the book. In my head i pictured him a little taller and older looking. Another thing that made the movie different from the book was that in the movie there was no pageant. while reading the book I thought that the Pageant was a pretty interesting part but I guess they cut it out of the movie because it didn't play that much of a part in the main theme. But probably the biggest thing that I thought was different was how they portrayed Arthur Radley. I thought he would be a kind man that just didn't like to go outside much but the movie made it look like he was an actual vampire.
Yeah it was kinda cool how they chose what parts of the book where important to the main theme.
yea I also pictured Dill as the older kid. I though he would be like 14 years old and pretty grown but he is young and small in the movie.
I agree with how Dill looked. He wasn't very mature looking compared to how I imagined him.
As always for me, the book was better than the movie. The details weren’t as defined in the movie. I like to create my own characters as well. Seeing new, different characters is always interesting to see how a movie producer sees them. I think changes were made because depicting the authors mind is very hard. What they see, what a producer sees, and what an audience wanted to see are all different but have to connect one way or another. The biggest shock for me was seeing Boo Radley. I pictured him way different than the movie, I expected him to be kind of scary and didn’t see that to much. Not that that is a bad thing at all.
I agree it it is interesting how the movie producers perceive the characters and what actors they use.
Boo definitely didn't look as intimidating as I expected. He looked more soft and kind than anything.
I liked the book better than the movie. The book includes more detail, and things that I liked about the were left out in the movie, like Calpurnia taking Jen and scout to church and reading to Mrs. Dubose. Though it was missing some parts I thought it it represented the book pretty well. It covers the most important events and it portrayed the characters well. They could not put every little detail In the movie because it would be like 4 hours long so the details the were included were a good representation of the book. Overall I liked both.
Yeah I agree, and those parts would have been cool to see in the movie.
I agree. I think the movie was lacking detail.
I definitely enjoyed the book, way more than the movie. While watching the movie I noticed that they missed many large details and actions. Both the novel and the film have, same setting and main ideas and such but the movies also was missing some major details within the plot and people. Like how Aunt Alexandra was a major part of Scout and how she was being shaped during this time and Aunt Alexandra in a way was a very big character in the book, and that was very different in the movie. In the book Miss Maudie’s house was put to flames, and in the movie that did not occur. Also, in the movie we do not witness them going with Calpurnia to church. Though through y’all of this the main points were still reached just not in full detail of how they were in the book.
I agree that the story didn’t have all the points that the book did and that the book was better.
It is pretty crazy how in our mind we create a mental image of people and objects in the book. The physical characteristics such as height, stature, color, and size where all shocking to me. It makes a huge difference in the way we perceive and interpret the actions of the characters. One change i noticed was how they didn't have Jem and Scout read to Mrs. Dubose. This is probably because they want to bring more attention to the main themes of the book and they found this one to be less important.
I noticed that they didn’t read to her as well.
The book is more detailed version of the story compared to the movie (like most books are). One difference is that they never had to read to Mrs.Duboise. Another difference is Miss Maudies house never catch on fire. One more major difference is that the kids never to go church with Caplernia. These are just few of the differences between the book and movie. I don't really know which one was better, I didn't really enjoy either.
I think the movie represented the book fairly well. There were some major themes that were the same as the book, even though there were some important events and characters that were missing. For example, Aunt Alexandria wasn’t even in the movie, and Mrs. Dubose was never portrayed they way Atticus thought of her, just the children’s initial impression. In the movie, Atticus was portrayed with the same moral compass he had in the book, the children were just as adventurous and obedient to their father, and the community was just as I imagined. I think that the movie took out a lot of small stories and characters to shorten the length of the movie because it was already two hours long.
The similarities between the movie and the book is racism. They are both set in similar time periods, and are both set in southern America. At this time blacks and whites were “equal”, meaning no black slaves. People were still extremely racist though, causing a lot of problems for both races. Although most people aren’t racist now days, there are still problems rising up about it. With all the riots going on it causes a lot of confusion between everyone, and a lot of contention even with some close friends about it.
In my opinion, I personally thought the book was better. It was much more detailed and I like picturing the characters as how I think they look. Dill was a little scrawny and weak looking compared to how I imagined him. Another difference was that in the book, Aunt Alexandra was living with the Finches. In the book she was very proper and always kept things in check.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.