Tag: compare

Categories
Book vs Movie Books Movie/Pop Culture

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Book vs Movie: Faithful Adaptation, Different Impact

Estimated Reading Time 7min

I’m Baaaaack! We have another book vs movie to do today and this was NOT part of our regularly scheduled programming (and by that, I wasn’t planning to do this one any time soon).

All the same, here we are. The reason I’ve done this one was because the Narnia books have been calling my name, like a lions roar from inside a wardrobe… okay maybe not quite that dramatically but I was very interested to read at least the Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. Then I figured, why not compare it to the film! So let’s do it now:

The Book by C. S. Lewis

cs lewis

I started with the book (my preferred method for these explorations anyway) and there were some great elements that I’ll share first. Every so often, Lewis added this little asides – almost like 4th wall breaks or funny quips – that really gave some levity and fun to the book. The premise was built upon it being written for a young child that Lewis knew, and so he wrote it as if it was a secret story just between the two. We get to be in on the secret, and that was really nice. The voice was more of the narrator 3rd person, than a particular character, which meant we could get some exposition from various characters and places in the same chapter without it feeling too jumpy. It was really quite easy to read, and just under 200 pages – so not too much of a time commitment. I think just under two hours is what it took me to get to the end.

One thing I did notice, was that the magic system for Narnia wasn’t really explained much at all. There seemed to be rules, but they were often contradictory and not explained as to how they worked – they just did. Although these days I am used to reading more stories that have at least a cursory explanation, I didn’t mind it for Narnia. It wasn’t something that bothered me so much that I switched off from the book and the story.
Another thing I noticed – which could just be me – was something very interesting in terms of the door opening in getting to Narnia. The book made a point to mention how silly it would be to close the door on yourself inside a wardrobe, and when Lucy alone goes in and they all go in with Peter at the door, they both leave it open (see above reason). However, when Edmund follows Lucy in, he closes the door and is the only one to come across the witch when he goes in. Coincidence? Maybe… 😛

The Movie

Overall the movie was better than I remembered from school (which is where I watched it the first time.. boy I’m old). It had some lovely cinematic choices (like a silence right before the moment of battle at the end) and the animation of the animals and such was surprisingly good. Something I noticed was that Aslan (and most of the others as a matter of fact) was better animated and created than ALL the Lion King remake characters combined… which was a little sad for the Lion King. Nice bits and pieces from the book were hinted at like the books Mr Tummnis owned on humans, or the drawing of a moustache on a stone animal staying when it was reanimated.

The Witch wasn’t as white as she should have been. It wasn’t describing her as slightly more caucasian than most, she was supposed to be paper white – sickly and ghastly looking – but the film didn’t go quite as hard as they should have with the makeup in my opinion. I will say that Aslan’s death was a lot more impactful when you watched it – and something which wasn’t in the book was that look between Lucy and Aslan as he died was very sad. On the flip side, we got to see something really fun which was the way the trees were alive, and how that looked – something the book never explained.

Major Comparisons

While the book seemed more plot drive, it was clear that the movie wanted a more balanced – and dare I say leaning closer towards character driven – story. By doing this, they gave characters (in particular Peter and Edmond) richer setups for their characters and the choices they were going to make in the movie. They added a lot more animosity between the boys, and they had moments of greater meaning that hadn’t been in the book to give more impact for those moments. An example of this for Peter, was the scene on the melting river with the wolf, then finally getting his chance to kill him – only the latter was in the book. Similarly for Edmond, Mr Tummnis alive and in prison with him having a heart to heart, before he went out and the fox was turned to stone in front of him. Something that gave Edmond more time to realise what he had done, rather than come to that realisation pretty quickly and with a lot more self interest (like he did in the book). As for the girls, well Susan was a bit more sharp in the films, and they had minimal character development.

We got extra scenes like the war at the start, and how that impacted the children, more about the siblings and their relationships, Mr Tumnis’ realisation of turning over Lucy was great, the missing internal dialogue was a shame in some moments, and the general timeline for some events were a bit different (like Edmond sharing where Aslan would be located). Out of the few things that the movie didn’t explain very well, was my personal annoyance – the Turkish Delight. It was actually magically enchanter. The book explains that it was enchanted to make the eater just want to continue it forever, and it gave a lot more reasoning into why Edmond wanted to hand over his siblings for candy. I think not explaining did his character a disservice. One thing we did get though, was seeing the start of the final battle from Peter and Edmonds POV – something that we missed in the book.

I don’t know why they decided to just give these “kids” titles like “The Just” and “The Gentle” when they hadn’t earned them yet (something that only came after years of ruling as Kings and Queens), but whatever. My final question, which I think is the most important of all, was HOW THE HECK DID MR TUMNIS NOT GET COLD WHILE HE WASN’T WEARING A SHIRT IN THE SNOW????

Grab the book Here

Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope to have another Book Vs Movie out soon. What were your thoughts on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe? Did you agree with my insights? Share in the comments.

See You in the Adventures!
Christy Grace

Categories
Life

Small House vs Bigger – Which Is Better?

I’m so used to moving – and mostly not by choice – that I have a WEALTH of information to compare small and larger houses….

It is always a bit of a shock for people to find out that I have been a casual mover since I was born. My family and I have moved countries more than once, and when we did settle in just one of those at the age of around 6 years old (on my part), the average of our moving houses if you were to spread it all out would be every three years. A new house every three years you say? Why yes, yes I did. When it was my turn to finally move out on my own, I vowed that it would NOT be anything like that… and I was right. I’m actually worse.

newhome

Over the past two years I have moved three times…. I know, I know. I’ve been implied a frustration with moving so often and here I am being three times as bad as my family, but there have been reasons I assure you! Whatever those very long and complicated stories may be, the upside is that I know what it’s like to live in a bigger house that echos, and a smaller one that doesn’t have many walls separating the bedroom and living room. So, which was better? Let’s delve in shall we!

>>>Get a copy of my ebook KIDNAPPED Entanglement >>>here

My first place was a studio unit. It was larger than you’re probably imagining of course, because it was the length of a two bedroom apartment… it just wasn’t a fan of walls. Though technically a studio, it had a separate kitchen and bathroom, an entry way that was walled in but unusable for every day furniture, and the only wardrobe was a cupboard that was under the stairs that led to said apartment above.

It was small and cozy, and I loved it. Yes my bed was in the middle of the living room (well, off to the side but you get the idea), but it was a lovely place that was pretty new, close to my family, and AMAZINGLY cheap! Too good to be true however, I had to leave (I’ll spare you the very long and complicated story for now and just get to the good stuff). My next property was a three bedroom, double story townhouse with a single garage. It had a backyard (complete with green slime that grew under the water thingy – I couldn’t be bothered researching the real name… maybe a tank?), a kitchen in the middle of two small living spaces and an ensuite in the biggest bedroom. It was also echoey, annoying to clean and kind of lonely for just one person.

ron-ogden-roommate

Why didn’t I get roommates? The same question my parents often asked me, but it was never something I was interested in. Why didn’t I pick a smaller house? Another good question, and the answer is that it was the only property around that was not going to cost me an arm and a leg each month, and was also still close to everything in my life. So, I went from a small place, to a big one that echoed with each step.

Then, my next place – this time it wasn’t anywhere NEAR my family and friends. It was an hour away (at least), in a city apartment. One bedroom and pretty small, with a car space that you had to pay extra for on top of rent, and still cost an arm and a leg. If I look at the houses that I’ve lived in myself (not counting the various with my family… after all many bodies in a larger house make it feel more cramped), I can categorically decide which I think is better – bigger or smaller houses.

The answer, is smaller. I know, I know it makes it unlikely that I would ever buy a five bedroom mansion for just myself – though I will admit it’s fun to look at those online! What would happen if you’re a millionaire with a small three bedroom apartment… would people even know that you were rich? I wouldn’t care… not that I have millions in the bank, but a girl can still dream. Here are my reasons…

  • When you live by yourself, too many rooms are lonely – it reminds you of who isn’t there, and the space becomes larger than your friends and family could ever fill
  • When you have to clean the house yourself, it is an almost impossible job – even considering cleaning a large house on your own properly is almost overwhelming. It was often that I would have to do a big spring clean rather than a simple Saturday go around… and it wasn’t fun when you finally got around the stuff that gathers in a normal house when you don’t clean
  • The stairs were annoying as anything, especially when I hurt my ankle and could barely get up there – I know that isn’t always a factor, but it was for my houses
  • When it’s hot, upstairs is a sauna – and not in a good way! Sleeping on the couch downstairs with enough aircon to cool you but not too much to send your power bill through the roof was horrendous

I know houses are going to work for some and not others. If you have a big family, of course you need more space than those with a smaller one. I am just me, after all. So a smaller house fits better. I don’t need loads of furniture and stuff to be happy, so why not have a place that can only fit less? Why not cull the clutter that I don’t use and fit into a smaller place? Being in a cozy apartment – or even the solidly sized studio – makes you feel secure and like the space is just right for you. It’s not too much, or not too little – as I have seen in SOME studio or one bedroom apartments over the last two years.

giphy (1)

So there you have it, my view on smaller and bigger houses. A lot of it will come down to what you can afford without going bankrupt, and how many bodies you gotta cram in there, but that’s the verdict.

Do you think you’d rather a bigger or smaller house? Share in the comments! 

See You in the Adventures!
Christy Grace

Categories
Book vs Movie Books Movie/Pop Culture

Father of the Bride: How the Remake Shifted the Family Story

Estimated Reading Time 5min

It is kind of surprising HOW MANY movies are actually based on novels. I had no clue that Father of the Bride was based on a book that was released in 1949! I will admit, I have only seen the Steve Martin version of the film, though the earlier make would be fun to watch also. When I realised, I decided it simply HAD to make it onto my list of Book vs Movie reviews.

It’s been a while since we’ve done one of these, and this is the first time I’m doing a more in depth blog post about it, so let’s get into things!

For a change, this book didn’t feel like it had been condensed for the movie. Normally, you get the distinct feeling of a compressed storyline for film, which is totally understandable. You don’t often get the time constraint for a novel, whereas a movie takes place in 1.5-2 hours. Even though not all the same antics take place, you don’t feel like the story missed out on several key factors. I think the main reason for this, was because the book was actually quite short. It was only 230 pages, and covered a lot of wedding aspects.

Which leads me to the next point, not every moment in the book was copied in the film/s, BUT the main points and themes were. I will admit that in the book, I missed certain film elements (which I will cover next), but for the most part the gist of the story was taken across into a film format. It’s a good example of a movie doing WELL by the book – though I have only watched the Steven Martin movie for this comparison, so I couldn’t say about the others.

One thing that I will say, is that I MISSED Franck! One of my favourite element of the film, was Martin Short’s portrayal of the difficult to understand and over the top wedding coordinator. The closest we got to this character in the book, was a snobish caterer – but he wasn’t nearly as interesting.

In terms of the characters we did still have, there were some notable changes. The names for one thing. Though the last name “Banks” was the same, all the first names (and the surname for the fiancé) were different. Not such a huge deal, but different none the less.

Also, the character of the daughter (Annie for the movie, and Kay for the book) was a lot more immature, whiny, and bratish. I didn’t like her in the book, but not because she was an unlikable person – we didn’t actually develop her character outside the wedding, so it would be hard to like or dislike her at all – just that she seemed so unsophisticated as a supposed adult.

Because this book was written in the 40s, the language is more “old world” and uptight. This is always a challenge for me to read, as it isn’t my preferred style. I also noticed that there was A LOT of italics used (somewhat like me using CAPITALS a bunch so far in this post.. but worse). The writer, Edward Streeter, seemed obsessed with italics.

A great feature in the book, were the illustrations. Almost every page or two, there was an image of Mr Banks and party in the various antics from that or the previous page. It gave the book a light and humorous feel which was quite nice.

Finally, and most important (in my view) was the theme of Fathers and Daughters in the context of weddings. This is where, I believe, the movie did a much better job than the book. The whole story is focussed on a father helping his daughter and wife put together a wedding. The character of Mr Banks, in both iterations, was somewhat frustrating. They were worried about the money, the damage, the number of guests, and making the day special for their daughter. Though they were different in many ways, that was a constant. However, I feel like the character in the book lost the heart that Steve Martin put into Banks for the film.

It really did come down to how much he loved his daughter, and wanted her to have the best in life and in her wedding day. There were a lot more comedic and neurotic moments in the film, which I think were best placed in the film with a comedic timing. Though I admit it was better for that format, I do miss that element in the book. Less prudent and sensible, and more neurotic and falling into pools is what I say!

Okay, so let’s do an overall thoughts to finish this post off. I think, though the book had some great points, the movie wins hands down. It had more heart, more humour and more Franck! I did enjoy seeing some of the different points and aspects the book take (particularly from the perspective of a 50s style wedding), but the film just had something the book did not.

See You in the Adventures!
Christy Grace

Categories
Book vs Movie Books Life Movie/Pop Culture

The Hunger Games Book vs Movie: What Gets Lost When Survival Becomes Spectacle

Kids fighting to the death to be the ultimate victor and live in luxury… Okay, it wasn’t my first choice in reading material when The Hunger Games came out!

Estimated Reading Time: 5min

Okay, so I finally did it. I read The Hunger Games. I actually watched the movie years ago, not long after it came out. At the time, I wasn’t particularly interested in a story about kids being forced to fight to the death in an arena. It sounded awful, and not in a way that made me want to watch it. Now, almost a decade later, I’ve finally picked up the book and decided it was time to compare the two.

As always, there will be spoilers ahead.

The Main Story Stayed Intact

One thing the movie did well was sticking to the core plot. The major story beats are all there, and I was actually surprised by some of the smaller details that made it into the film. Things like Prim’s cat and Katniss’s dislike of it only take a few seconds of screen time, but they were included nonetheless.

At the same time, the movie removed a lot from the book, and that’s understandable. Films have time limits. Condensing material is part of adapting a novel. The problem wasn’t necessarily that things were cut. It was what was cut.

The Pacing Felt Backwards

One of my biggest complaints about the movie was the pacing. It felt like the first half of the film focused heavily on the lead-up to the Games, while the second half rushed through the Games themselves.

If anything needed condensing, I think it should have been some of those earlier scenes. By spending more time in the arena, the film could have explored the survival aspect much more effectively. 

In the book, the Games feel brutal. You see the effects of starvation, dehydration, injury, exhaustion, and the constant threat of death. The physical and emotional toll is impossible to ignore. The movie touched on those elements, but often moved past them so quickly that much of their impact was lost.

The Missing Character Moments

The biggest casualty of the adaptation wasn’t the plot. It was the character development.

Throughout the book there are countless small interactions that build relationships and motivations. Many of these moments never made it into the film. In particular, the dynamic between Katniss and Peeta suffered.

The movie includes the broad strokes of their story, but it removes many of the moments that make their partnership believable. Because of that, the “star-crossed lovers” strategy never felt as convincing on screen as it did in the novel.

Without those quieter scenes, it becomes harder to understand why certain choices matter later.

The Characters Lost Some of Their Personality

Another issue was how the characters came across. Book Katniss felt sharper and more observant. Her relationship with Gale felt more balanced and established. Peeta, meanwhile, came across as significantly kinder and gentler in the novel.

One example that stood out was when Katniss sees Peeta with the Career Tributes. In the book, there’s uncertainty about what he’s doing and why. In the movie, some of that ambiguity disappears, making him seem more focused on self-preservation than he actually is. The result is that many of the nuances of his character get lost. He’s still recognisably Peeta, but not quite the same Peeta.

Where the Movie Worked Better

To be fair, there were moments where the movie had an advantage. The Reaping is a great example. When I read Katniss volunteering for Prim in the book, it was emotional. Watching it happen on screen was even more powerful. Seeing Prim’s fear, hearing the silence of the crowd, and watching Katniss step forward created an emotional weight that hit much harder visually. Film can sometimes communicate emotion instantly in a way that books can’t, and this was one of those moments.

The Ending Lost Some Impact

One of the areas where I felt the adaptation struggled most was the aftermath of the Games. The movie moves through these scenes very quickly. In the book, however, there is far more tension and uncertainty. Katniss is separated from Peeta, unsure whether he will survive, and the emotional fallout is given room to breathe. These moments also help establish how Katniss’s feelings toward Peeta are changing.

By the end of the movie, I felt like she seemed almost indifferent to him. In the book, that simply isn’t the case. Her feelings are complicated, but there is already genuine care there. Losing those scenes weakens the emotional payoff.

Book vs Movie: Which Was Better?

If you couldn’t tell by now, I preferred the book. The pacing felt stronger, the characters had more personality, and the emotional moments landed more effectively because they had room to develop.

The movie isn’t a bad adaptation. It follows the main plot closely and includes more details than I expected. But for me, the emphasis was in the wrong places. Rather than cutting some of the setup and spending more time on character relationships and the reality of surviving the Games, the film often rushed through the moments that mattered most.

As with most book-to-movie adaptations, the book simply had more space to explore its world and characters. And in The Hunger Games, that extra space made all the difference.

Grab the book Here

Have you read the book and seen the movie? Which version did you prefer?

See You in The Adventures!
Christy Grace

Categories
Book vs Movie Books Life Movie/Pop Culture

Blade Runner vs Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?: Philosophy vs Visual Interpretation

Post apocalyptic world with androids, owls, and Harrison Ford. What else do you need? I’ll bet you didn’t realise that Blade Runner was actually a BOOK first…

Estimated Reading Time 6min

I recently discovered that Blade Runner was actually based on a book. That book is Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which is admittedly a much longer title and probably one of the reasons the film ended up being called Blade Runner instead. After watching the 1982 movie and then reading the novel, I had a lot of thoughts. And for once, this isn’t one of those adaptations where a few details were changed here and there. This felt like an entirely different story.

As always, spoilers ahead.

The Movie Assumes You’ve Read the Book

One of my biggest frustrations with Blade Runner was that it seemed to expect the audience to already know things that were never explained.

The concept itself is fantastic. Deckard’s job is to hunt down androids that look so human they can only be identified through specialised testing. Earth has been largely abandoned in favour of off-world colonies, and androids aren’t supposed to be here. Great premise. The problem is that the movie never properly explains the world surrounding that premise.

Why is Earth in such terrible condition?

Why have people left?

What happened to society?

The book answers all of these questions. The movie largely doesn’t.

The Missing Worldbuilding

One of the most interesting aspects of the novel is how much context it provides. In the book, we learn about wars, radioactive fallout, colonisation of other planets, and the environmental collapse that left Earth bleak and sparsely populated.

There are reasons the world looks the way it does.

There are reasons people have left.

There are reasons entire apartment blocks sit almost empty.

The movie gives us the visuals but not the explanations. Even a few lines of dialogue could have helped bridge that gap. Instead, the audience is simply expected to accept the setting without understanding how it got there.

The Importance of Animals

One of the strangest omissions from the film was the significance of animals. In the book, many species have gone extinct. Owls are gone. Many other animals are gone. Owning a real animal has become a symbol of status, empathy, and humanity.

This isn’t a minor detail. It’s woven into the themes of the story. The novel repeatedly explores the connection between empathy and what it means to be human. The movie touches on some of these ideas but never develops them in the same way. As a result, a major layer of the story disappears.

The Moral Questions Were More Interesting Than the Action

Before reading the book, I was warned that it contained a lot of introspection. That warning was accurate. There are pages dedicated to characters questioning themselves, their choices, and their place in the world. At times it can feel slow. At times it can even feel a little dry. But those moments are also what make the story memorable.

The novel constantly asks difficult questions:

  • What makes someone human?
  • Can empathy be measured?
  • Is killing an android morally different from killing a person?
  • If something thinks and feels like a human, does the distinction even matter?

The movie touches on some of these ideas, but the book dives into them much more deeply. The Characters Were Completely Different This was probably the biggest surprise. Many of the characters share names between the book and movie, but that’s often where the similarities end. 

Deckard’s circumstances are different. 

The androids are different.C

haracter motivations are different.

Relationships are different.

The endings are different.

In some places, it almost felt as though the filmmakers took a handful of ideas from the novel and built an entirely new story around them. Some changes made sense. Others left me wondering why they were changed at all.

The Character the Movie Barely Used

One of the biggest losses was J.R. Isidore. In the novel, he’s a major character. In the movie, his role is significantly reduced. The book spends time exploring his loneliness, his struggles, and his place in a world that often dismisses him. His storyline adds another perspective on what it means to be human in a society obsessed with measuring worth. The film could have done so much more with him. Instead, one of the novel’s most important characters is largely pushed aside.

The Empathy Box and the Theme of Loneliness

Perhaps the most unusual concept in the book is the empathy box. It’s difficult to explain because it’s unlike almost anything else I’ve read. People connect to a shared experience through a figure called Mercer. When they do, they become part of a collective struggle, sharing emotions and experiences with others.

It sounds strange.

It is strange.

But it’s also one of the ways the book explores loneliness.

And loneliness is everywhere in this story. Earth is mostly empty. People are isolated. Communities are fractured. Characters desperately search for connection. The empathy box may be odd, but it serves an important purpose in reinforcing those themes. The movie removes it entirely.

Why the Book Worked Better

There were parts of Blade Runner that I enjoyed. The concept is excellent, the atmosphere is memorable, and considering it was made in 1982, the visuals were ambitious. But the movie left too many gaps. 

Important pieces of worldbuilding were missing however. Major character arcs were reduced or removed. Some of the story’s most interesting themes barely made it onto the screen. Meanwhile, the novel explored morality, loneliness, empathy, identity, and humanity in ways that felt thoughtful and surprisingly relevant.

It wasn’t always an easy read. Philip K. Dick can be incredibly wordy, and at times the book feels more like literature than a straightforward sci-fi adventure. But for me, that depth was exactly what made it worthwhile.

Book vs Movie: Which Wins?

For this one, the winner is easy.

The book.

While Blade Runner remains a sci-fi classic, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? provided the context, character depth, and thematic exploration that the movie simply couldn’t match. The film gave me questions. The book gave me answers. And in this case, those answers made all the difference.

Grab the book Here

Have you read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or only seen Blade Runner? Which version did you prefer?

See You in The Adventures!
Christy Grace

Categories
Books Goals and Wrap Ups Life

Wrap Up for Aug/Sept | CGSP Booktube

youtube

I smooshed August and September reading into ONE video. 

In the latest CGSP Booktube video, I’m going over the books I read, and what I thought! I can’t wait to share about the great writing that’s out there (besides my own!). Check out the video below:

I hope you enjoyed the video, and I can’t wait to get the results on my October reading list. 

If you want to check out WHAT I’m reading during October, you can watch the game that I went with to decide what made it, and what didn’t! 

 

 

For other Booktube videos, head to the CGSP Youtube page!

See You in The Adventures!
Christy Grace