brought to you by OBS Staffer Katelyn

The odds are always stacked against us. Mistake after mistake. I’ll never criticize Romeo again.-Edward Cullen (New Moon book)

This book is the second in the Twilight Saga. Bella Swan and Edward Cullen have been together for several months. When Bella’s birthday comes around she is suddenly aware that she is aging and Edward is not. Also the danger that surrounds their relationship is growing. Edward breaks up with Bella so that he can protect her from his world. This sends Bella into a deep depression and her only savior is her best friend Jacob, a teenage werewolf. Bella’s love for her best friend grows but the constant reminder of her lost love threatens her happiness.

This highly anticipated second installment film is one for the record books. Twilight fans around the world lines up for hours and days at a time to get the first look at this film. Director Chris Weitz (Golden Compass) is known for his amazing CGI visual eye. The biggest fantasy element of this film were the wolves, and they did not disappoint!

The debut acting of Taylor Lautner, as Jacob Black, was truly wonder to see. The chemistry between Taylor and his co-star Kristen Stewart held true to the Jacob and Bella in Stephenie Meyer’s book. The shirtless wolf-pack had great chemistry as well. The camaraderie that only these boys could gain from being in the Pack was greatly showcased.

It was also great to see the changes from book to movie. The novel is Bella’s point of view, but to make the story flow better as a movie, other point of views were shown. This was a great treat for fans of the novel to see another perspective. Also, the Volturi were as eerie and regal as described in the book. Michael Sheen and Dakota Fanning as two of the main Volutri members really stole teh show in those scenes. It was a great first look and I am eager to see them perform in the coming installments.

The Similarities

- Key scenes were kept (Dream sequence, birthday party, Edward/Bella break up, Jacob/Bella rain breakup, Jacob/Paul wolf fight, the vote)

- Bella and Jake’s relationship were consistent in both

- Yellow Porsche!!

The Differences

- Edwards car is black (silver in book)

- Bella writes emails to Alice to narrate her depression and explain her thoughts about growing relationship with Jacob (movie)

- Romeo & Juliet movie scene took place in classroom, meshing into explanation of Volutri

- Volturi killing shown with Carlisle in background

- Jacob/Bella relationship shown through montage of building the motorcycle

- Victoria gives Harry Clearwater heartattack

- Victoria is clearly seen in water after Bella jumps off the cliff

- Edward and Felix fight scene

- Bella “wakes up” at home from end of Italy scene.

- Edwards apology is readily accepted from Bella (book: she thinks his is a dream)

“When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of night he’d reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray than each one that had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world. His hand rose and fell softly with each precious breath…He knew only that the child was his warrant. He said: If he is not the word of God God never spoke.”

The Road is the ultimate survival story, with a father living solely to protect his son after the world has essentially ended and there is little life, hope, or sanity left in the world. After an unspecified disaster destroys all the plant and animal life, along with most of the human population, they must travel south in order to survive the elements. The two travel through the desolate landscape, scavenging food when they can and taking everything worth keeping in an old shopping cart. Their goal is to make it to the coast and follow it south from there, where they hope there are more people and some food left. But they aren’t the only ones on the Road, and the others pose an unimaginable threat.

Besides the actual story of survival, both the book and the movie touch on what it means to survive in a world beyond hope. What keeps someone going in a world like that? Can you struggle to survive day to day and watch horrors take place all around you and still be a good person? The book and the movie touch on these in slightly different ways (because of the various limitations of each mediums) but both get the same message across: just surviving isn’t enough, you need that something more or you lose your humanity.

This is one of the most accurate Book to Movie transitions I’ve seen. I think it helps that the book is just over 200 pages, and the average screenplay is about as long. It’s so good, in fact, that with one exception when two scenes are switched around, you could follow along with the book.

The book takes place in post-apocalyptic America; and the entire movie was shot outside (something pretty rare nowadays) and entirely in the US: Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. Some shots were made more gray to appear more desolate, but locations were chosen for their severity, to appear as accurately as possible.

I was incredibly impressed by the casting. Charlize Theron plays the mother, and the actor playing The Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) looks just like her; he’s perfect for this part. Viggo Mortensen is excellent (as always), and the movie is studded with famous actors. Viggo Mortensen and author Cormac McCarthy spoke on the phone while Mortensen was preparing for the movie. The two talked about their sons, and after hanging up Mortensen realized he hadn’t asked a single question about the book. But the book is actually dedicated to McCarthy’s son, and was the inspiration for it. Cormac McCarthy and his son were present on set, and their dynamic was clearly influential. Director John Hillcoat said he was shocked to see them having some of the same conversations in the same tone as The Man and The Boy in the book.

Similarities

• Very true to the book; some foraging for food scenes were cut for time
• All of the dialogue from the book is in the movie, word for word.
• The tone was exactly the same as the book: bleak, bitter, and the smallest light of hope that very nearly died.

Differences

• Two scenes that weren’t in the book were added to the movie, but made up for the few that were cut
• The most gruesome scene (in my opinion) was cut; but for completely understandable reasons
• The Man swore and got angry with The Boy much more in the movie; The Boy was also much more argumentative in the movie-to the point of fighting and hitting his father. They were both much more patient with each other in the book, more like equals.

Accuracy Rating: 4.5 out of 5. The patience of The Man in the book was one of my favorite parts, and that was changed enough to bug me in the movie.

“He is Peter Pan, you know, mother’

At first Mrs. Darling did not know, but after thinking back into her childhood she just remembered a Peter Pan who was said to live with the fairies. There were odd stories about him; as that when children died he went part of the way with them, so they should not be frightened. She had believed in him at the time, but now that she was married and full of sense she quite doubted whether there was any such person.”

Peter Pan was written by J.M. Barrie in 1904 for the children of a friend. Originally a play, it has since been adapted into a book. One of the key details in the play was that Captain Hook and Mr. Darling be played by the same person, since the story itself isn’t about a child who doesn’t want to grow up, but rather about the wonderful way a child’s mind works.

The book is layered (like Alice in Wonderland), so you find new treasures each time you read it. If you read it as a child, and then again as an adult, it will be like two different stories—time only deepens the beauty of the book. It tells children not to grow up too fast, while it reminds parents that acting like a grown up isn’t always a good thing.

Like all fairy tales that have gotten the Disney treatment, the movie adaptation has been simplified to the frame of the story. All of the actions and adventures from the book are included in the movie, although the idea of Neverland becoming real because of the children’s dreams is ignored. Walt Disney began working on the animated version of Peter Pan while work was still going on Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (Disney’s first full length animated movie). Walt Disney thought that animation was the perfect medium for Peter Pan since all other versions of the story were either on stage or very reminiscent of the stage play (a silent film was made in the 30’s that used theater tricks-actors on wires and a costumed human playing Nana). Peter Pan took 16 years to make it from conception art to the screen, in large part because of script revisions to get the story just right. For a movie that is less than an hour and a half long, they did a very good job at staying true to the story.

SIMILARITIES

• Peter trying to reattach his shadow with soap, a thimble as a kiss, etc.
• Flying around London
• Playing “Follow the Leader” (this is a song in the movie)
• Wendy is just as worried in the books as in the movie

DIFFERENCES

• Peter is much more self absorbed in the book
• The children leaving for Neverland was not because of Wendy moving out of the nursery and growing up, they simply wanted to go.
• The scene with Tigerlily is a little different
• The ending chapter is left out. This is one of the few versions of Peter Pan that does not show Wendy as a grown woman.

“Fencing. Fighting. Torture. Poison. True love. Hate. Revenge. Giants. Hunters. Bad men. Good men. Beautifulest ladies. Snakes. Spiders. Beasts of all natures and descriptions. Pain. Death. Brave men. Coward men. Strongest men. Chases. Escapes. Lies. Truths. Passion. Miracles.”

After years on her farm, Buttercup realizes she is in love with the farm boy, Westley. When he goes to seek his fortune so they can marry, he is murdered by the Dread Pirate Roberts. Years later, Buttercup has agreed to marry Prince Humperdink, but before the wedding she is kidnapped by three men. But they are being followed by the man in black…

William Goldman wrote The Princess Bride in 1973 for his two daughters; one wanted a story about a princess, the other wanted a story about a bride. A satirical love story, written as “an abridgement of S. Morgenstern’s classic tale of true love and high adventure” the “good parts version” includes the story of a little boy discovering books because of the story his father read to him when he was sick.

When the movie was finally made, Goldman wrote the screenplay (he had already won an Oscar for writing Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid). He was approached by Rob Reiner, who had loved the book, and after watching This is Spinal Tap, Goldman agreed. So casting began. Reiner said “there was only one man in the entire world who could play Fezzik: Andre the Giant. Billy [William Goldman] wrote the part with him in mind”. Robin Wright was one of the last women they saw, Cary Elwes was spotted in another movie, and Mandy Patinkin was sent the script and hired.

The film had a limited budget, so they tried to use as many existing locations as they could. Most of the castle scenes were filmed in a castle built in the 11th Century (with some of the original tapestries still on the walls). Really only the scenes with water and the fire swap didn’t already exist, which helped the actors, and is wonderful for the viewers.

A movie so well know that it completely overshadows William Goldman’s “abridgement”, The Princess Bride has been a classic since it came out (seriously, do you know anyone who hasn’t seen it?) While the book is wonderful and funny, I think this is one of the few times where the movie is better: it’s really the good parts version.

Similarities

• Almost all of the lines are straight out of the book; especially the hilarious ones (like “Jesus, what’d you read me this for?”
• The only character’s that were cut were Buttercup’s parents. All of the rest are in the movie.

Differences

• The movie is more upbeat; the book has some dark moments
• More history: Buttercup’s childhood, Humperdink’s hunting obsession, Westley’s torture.

Accuracy rating: 5 out of 5. The books 400 pages, but what matters is what’s in the movie.

“Step on a mouse and you leave your print, like a Grand Canyon, across Eternity. Queen Elizabeth might never have been born, Washington might not cross the Delaware, there might never be a United States at all. So be careful. Stay on the Path. Never step off! ”

In the future, there is a time machine. The super rich can now pay to go back in time and hunt the greatest game that ever lived: dinosaurs. You just have to make sure you don’t change anything in the past, otherwise you’ll change the future. Even the smallest change, even a tiny bug, multiplied by millions of years, can change everything…

The short story (of the same name) by Ray Bradbury was originally published in 1952. Bradbury took the phrase “The Butterfly Effect” and made it quite literal. In an arms-race charged 50’s, the moral is the smallest actions have great consequences. The story is beautifully written and a joy to read.

Originally scheduled for release in 2003, the film was delayed until 2005 due to a number of issues. Originally Pierce Brosnan was going to star. While filming, there was a flood in Prague (where they were shooting) and the entire cast and crew had to evacuate. Then the production company went bankrupt. During the writing of the script, the original screenwriter was fired because he wanted to remove the butterfly from the story. Ray Bradbury was so upset that producer’s agreed to fire the writer. The film was finally release in September of 2005.

Similarities

• Time Safari
• Travis is still the leader of the hunt

Differences

• The bullets
• They shoot the same Allosaurus every time; in the book they shoot a Tyrannosaurus Rex-once. They also say the wrong Era: Allosaurus lived in the late Jurassic (145 million years ago) while the Tyrannosaurus lived in the Cretaceous (65 Million years ago).
• The changes that results from stepping off the path take time to occur, and increase everyday in waves; in the book they are noticed the second they get back (because the change took place as a result of a change to the past).
• The reason everything has changed is different too.

Accuracy rating: ½ out of 5. The concept is the same, but after the first 20 minutes it’s an entirely different time travel story.

“There’s a playground at the end of the block and I run to the swings and climb on, and Henry takes the one next to me, facing the opposite direction, and we swing higher and higher, passing each other, sometimes in sync and sometimes streaming past each other so fast it seems like we’re going to collide, and we laugh, and laugh, and nothing can ever be sad, no one can be lost, or dead, or far away: right now we are here, and nothing can mar our perfection, or steal the joy of this perfect moment”

“A most untraditional love story, this is the celebrated tale of Henry DeTamble, a dashing, adventuresome librarian who involuntarily travels through time, and Claire Abshire, an artist whose life takes a natural sequential course. Henry and Claire’s passionate affair endures across a sea of time and captures them in impossibly romantic traps that tests the strength of fate and basks in the bonds of love.” (from the 2004 US paperback edition)

When Audrey Neffenegger began writing The Time Traveler’s Wife, she had told stories using art, frame by frame. She knew she couldn’t tell the story of time travel with still images, so “it either needs to be a novel, or a movie”. She realized that the novel allowed her to add layers she wouldn’t have in a short story. Over the basic formula of “boy meets girl, girl meets boys, they fall in love, have a family…”, she could add the difficulty of waiting for someone who was out having adventures, the common idea of loss (in uncommon circumstances) and come out with something extraordinary.

The book was optioned for a movie in 2004, but marketing delays and reshoots pushed the date back from a 2008 release to Summer of 2009. Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin (Ghost) focused on keeping the emotional intensity from the book in the script, while being forced to cut details of the book itself (including some time travel): “We were very concerned about how we got out the rules of time travel, how we sort of layered them into the movie. It was very important that the movie not just be a movie that makes you cognitively involved and not emotionally involved.” The actors could relate to thier characters, despite the extraordinary circumstances; while the story is about time travel, it really focuses on love and loss, and what that does to a relationship.

Similarities

• The big moments for Claire and Henry are still there (Henry disappearing at the wedding, how they meet, etc)
• How much they love each other
• Charisse, Gomez, and Henry’s father are still important

Differences

• The relationships with other characters are gone; the movie is the story of Henry and Claire, the book is the story of their life together.
• Henry time travels much less, we don’t see him go to Claire as often.
• The importance of Dr. Kendrick
• What’s going on with Claire’s family
• The impact Henry had on Claire as a child

3.5 out of 5. The movie tried to convey the trouble they had through life, but it didn’t come close enough-the book is much deeper.