Similarities and differences between the book and film
Did the film faithfully recreate the book, or simply adapt IT?Having been adapted and directed by author Stephen Chobsky, the film is pretty true to the book, although the movie version did add a neat little twist to the way Sam and Charlie become so close and ultimately the devastating implications it has on his life. Obviously miner details did have to be cut from the film due to time restraints, some of which had no importance, others that would have only taken up a three or so minute scene, wouldn't have hurt to include; such as the "M.A.S.H." scene where Charlie's father cries. All in all the film does faithfully recreate the book by incorporating all the major events.
|
What approach would you have taken if the task of filming the book had been your job?
I would have done mostly the same thing that Stephen Chobsky did when it came it selection of characters and most of the scenes, however i think he did leave out some pretty vital elements of the story, that i was looking forward to seeing in the film.
More of Charlie's sister's relationship with Ponytail Derek should have been included, especially the pregnancy and abortion. This scene greatly effects Charlie and his sister's bond, for the better, and made a big difference to their relationship. Charlie's relationship with his English teacher should definitely have been better highlighted. In the book the two have a close connection, where Charlie calls him by his first name and they often catch up outside class to discuss Charlie's problems. In the film they barely have three scenes together. Finally I would have also been more true to the book when it came to Charlie skipping class to smoke with Patrick and Sam at lunchtimes, because I think that momentous event that brought them together. |
Did you prefer the book or film?
I honestly preferred the film to the book. There was a lot of important information that was left out in the film, however the characters acted all in their own way, different and better from what I envisioned in the book. Especially Ezra Miller that Played Patrick, he was a lot louder, funnier and more interesting in the film. Charlie was also expressed better in the film, as a narrator, occasionally reading his letters, instead of seeing everything through his eyes only. In the book Charlie's is the only opinion and in some parts of the story he tends to ramble and not make much sense, which annoyed me as a reader.