text:
Of Mice and Men - book vs. movie
What are thoughts about how the book and the movie compare? What differences did you notice between the two? How true to the book was the movie? Did the actors portray the characters the way you imagined them when you read the book? If Steinbeck had been able to see the movie, do you think he would have approved? Explain. Which is better - the book or the movie? Why?
Josh Derus
03/15/2012 9:21am
I thought the book and the movie were very similar, yet there were a few scenes that were added and skipped. A few scenes added were when George brings the horse into the barn, and when Curley's wife talks to George and Lennie outside the bunkhouse. A scene that was skipped in the movie is when Candy and Curley's wife were supposed to ender Crooks' room, and where George finds out that Candy told Crooks about the land they planned on getting. The dialog in the movie is very similar to the book, and a majority of the events that took place in the movie were the same as in the book. If Steinbeck was still around to see the movie, he would dissaprove, because the movie doesn't portray the naturalistic point of view in which he wrote the novel. He would also dissaprove of the movie because not all of the scenes are exactly the same, or even in the movie; and the ending is not the same as the book. The book is a lot better, because it tells you exactly what is going on in every situation, while in the movie, it isn't as easy to tell what the characters meant or fealt through their body language.
11/11/2013 7:52pm
I agree with you Josh. John Steinbeck would not be happy with what Gary Sinise did to the ending of the film. In the film, the killing of Lennie was very abrupt and heartless, while in the book, you could tell that George was very devastated with what he had to do.
10/16/2014 12:48pm
Fuck her right in the pussy
10/28/2014 10:01pm
Goddamit fred
11/03/2014 2:00pm
Fuck me harder!!!
11/03/2014 2:16pm
Suck that cock!!
Davida M
03/15/2012 9:35am
There were a lot of differences in the portrayal of characters. In addition to Curley's wife being given more depth, I noticed that Lennie's depiction in the film demanded sympathy, possibly empathy, whereas in the novel his character was more lovable. I think that his fate in the novel demanded more shock because we anticipated his appearances in the novel out of affection.
Aliee Z
03/15/2012 9:44am
I totally agree with you on Lennies appearance Deeda. I thought Lennie was going to be this big teddy bear guy. yes i mean fat, and a full head of hair and look about the same age as George.
Aliee Z. :D
03/15/2012 9:41am
I thought the movie and the book were alike in many ways but they did have a few differences like the scene in Crooks room, Candy never came in to talk with Lennie and Crooks about "the rabbits". The movie didnt seem as interesting to me as the book did. I felt that some of the characters could have be more precise with the book then they were portrayed. I think Steinbeck would approve of the movie but, he might not like the differences between the book and the movie because of added scenes and the charactors actions.
Tyler Siech
03/15/2012 10:23am
I feel that the book compared to the movie was very accurate and very distant from the book. Like in some of the main events in the book they covered and others did not. But overall I thought that the book was better than the movie, it made you feel more conected to the characters. But other than that I liked the movie since we were able to watch it visually and not have to read anything. The thing that I thought was good about the movie was that, I was a person who never read the book I would have been able to understand the book to some degree.
Paul Kriegel
03/15/2012 1:19pm
The movie is very accurate with the book, except for the part when Lennie enters Crook's room, instead George comes back early and gets Lennie, and then Curley's Wife talks to George and Lennie instead. But the movie also adds some scenes to make the movie more interesting. I think that the actors portrayed the book characters fairly nicely. I imagined the characters a little younger than that were in the movie, especially Lennie and Crooks. If Steinbeck had been alive today I think that he would have enjoyed the movie except for the fact that the scene in Crook's room. I think that he would have been angry that they didn't put that scene in the movie. Because it depicted the time that they lived in. I liked the book better because you can think whatever you want about what goes on in books. But in movies, it's like they tell you what happens and how it happens.
Alyssia Kleinhans
03/15/2012 3:12pm
The movie was very similar to the book. Even though there were some added and some deleted scenes it was still pretty much the same. It got the same message across. In the book I didn't think that Lennie was as challeneged as he was in the book.I also thought that he was going to be more of a "teddy bear" kind of guy. If Steinbeck saw the movie I think he would he would approve because the movie is a lot like the book, except for some scenes. The movie still gets the point across. I enjoyed both the movie and the book.
Mr. Cleary
03/16/2012 12:20pm
Did you think Lennie seemed more challenged in the book or in the movie?
Fuck with me
05/18/2012 8:06am
Read the book or watch the movie!!!!
Alyssia Kleinhans
11/03/2014 2:32pm
I dont give two shits about Lennie.
Alyssia Kleinhans
11/03/2014 2:32pm
I dont give two shits
11/04/2014 1:35pm
why reply 2 years later
Bryce Lueck
03/16/2012 6:45am
I Thought that the book was a little better than the movie because it had more detail and the movie didnt have as much really. The visuals in the movie were nice though i didnt really imagine lennie as that big and strong.
Katie Turicik
03/16/2012 6:46am
I thought the movie and book were very similar. There were a few scenes that weren't in the movie, for example when Lennie was envisioning Aunt Clara and George in a bunny suit. Otherwise I felt it was very accurate. The movie gave me a good visual of the book and helped me understand it more. The actors weren't quite what I was picturing, like Lennie was older than I thought he was and he wasn't as big as what the book made it seem like. Also Curley was way smaller than what was portrayed. I think if Steinbeck saw the movie, he would definitely approve because of its accuracy to the novel. He might've been a little disappointed they left out the scene when Curley's wife and Candy come into Crooks' room since that was extremely important to the novel. I feel the movie was better because it wasn't as confusing and it helped me have a better understanding, even though I didn't particularily like the book.
Joa Cain
03/16/2012 7:13am
I think the movie stayed pretty true to the book. There were somethings that were different like when George came into the barn with the muel and talked to Curly's wife. If Steinbeck was alive I think he would be happy with the movie because I got the same message and feelings from the book and the movie.
Taylor Liebe
03/16/2012 7:39am
There were a lot of differences between the book and the movie. I liked the movie more because it was easier to see what happened. The book was different from the movie because some of the scenes were not played in the movie. Some scenes that were played in the movie but it was not in the.
Kyle Lisowe
03/16/2012 7:40am
I thought the movie should the story very well with only a few differences. Some of the differences would be how Curleys wife was potrayed, in the movie it made her seem a little bit more innecent and loneny and nice. Another would be at the end, they did not show lenny imagining a giant rabbit and his aunt talking to him, that was a part i wanted to see actually. The actors potrayed the movie exactly i expected them to. I think he would mostly approve of it, maybe just the small changes he might not like. I the thought the movie was just as good as the book. They both gave me a clear image in my head of what was going on.
Briana Beseler
03/16/2012 7:47am
i think that movie was pretty in line with the book. the movie had the main parts even if it wasnt how it was in the book. there were a few scenes that were different. one that i notice in particular would proabably be where Lennie and George were putting bundles of barley?? in the back of a truck then curleys wife comes by them and talks about why curleys hand is busted but never finished it. then that conversation got finished by if i remember the bunk room with again only them three. how that whole scene happened in the movie is not how the book potrayed it. in the book lennie and candy were in the stable bucks room and curleys wife came in and then the converstation of curleys hand started there and ended there.i thought the characters didnt really have the image i thought. i thought curley would be big but i thought he'd be bigger and taller than what the movie showed him to be. i also thought curleys wife would have more appeared to be sluttier compared to what the movie had her to be. i thought curley would have been short and fat and have red hair. i thought that the stable buck would be reallly skinny and pretty rough looking. if steinbeck was alive and saw the movie i think he wouldve been pleased with it. the movie had the same affect. it got the same message along throughout. i personally like the book better, one if few books i actually like. i think its because books let you basically changed the way you want the characters to look like and how the scences are. i think that it makes it more enjoyable. a movie basically tells you straight out and doesnt give you the option of how a character looks and a scene looks.
Mr. Cleary
03/16/2012 12:29pm
Good job explaining how you envisioned the characters as you read the book.
Jasmin Carron
03/16/2012 8:30am
The book and the movie share the same plot, in the book things are more detailed vs the movie. Some differences I noticed was that when Lennie was in Crook's bunk George wasnt suppose to come into his room and have a talk. I pictures Curley to be ugly, along with his wife. The image the movie showed of them too gave me the impression that they were the bad guys. At the end of the movie I thought that George would have prolonged the gun shooting but it was right away. If Stienbeck would see this movie I think he would say it's good. The movie pretty much sticks to the book. If I had to choose which one was better, I'd choose the book. This is because it has more details and you picture the characters the way you want them to look.
Michelle Meinnert
03/16/2012 8:32am
The movie and the book are alike they followed the same topic but there were some ocational differences. The movie had sences that were added. The main things that I noticed that Curly's Wife was in the movie more than the book and she came when Lennie and George there going to the bunk house and she came and said something about Curly broke her records. When Lennie is in Crooks room disappointed me because Candy didn't show up but George did and also Curly's Wife didn't show up in the doorway either. In the book I thought most of the men on the ranch were a little fatter than what they were in the movie. I thought Curly was a short fat dude that thinks he is a tough guy. I think Steinbeck would have been satified with the movie. With most authors that has there book into a movie are mostly pleased. I thought the book was better than the movie but I think that happens all the time though if you read the book before the movie. You are looking for your favorite parts in the book into the movie and if they are not there you are unsatified.
Matthew Gannon
03/16/2012 8:40am
I think that the movie and the book were similar in most ways but the movie took out a few important scenes that were in the book. The most important one was probably when candy comes into crooks' bunk and talks about his, george, and lenny's plans to buy their own place. I think that in the movie, curley's wife was potrayed as more of a naggy and desperate woman pleading for attention. Lenny seemed to be even more mentally disabled in the movie than in the book. The movie was good to show how Lenny and George actually were because you could see how they actually talked and their facial expressions when they did. I think that the author of the book would have approved the movie because the main message that he wanted to show his readers was still potrayed in the movie. I think that the book was better because it did a better job of putting emphasis on the right parts and putting great detail where it was needed.
Stephani Feider
03/16/2012 8:41am
I would rather read the book than the movie because the movie explains more events in detail. The book gives a better view on the friendship between lennie and george and what it really means to each of them. In the movie they happened to leave out quite a few parts that would have been beeter if they were put in like when Candy goes into Cooks bunk and how it was the first time he was ever in there. The book made it seem so much more real and filled with emotion, the movie didn't really make it seem realistic nor did it really meet many of the details the book did. For instance when explain the part when lennie and Candy are in Cook's BUnk in the book but in the movie George walks in and sees only Lennie and get him out and Candy didn't go in there. Or the part where George is in the barn in the movie and Curly's wife comes in and talks to him and Curly walks in wasn't a part of the book. I feel the movie made it look way to fake and didn't meet the quality of the book. The movie did meet many of the things in the book but the way they presented and explained everything in the movie made it lose some of the meanings of important parts. The actors really didn't meet my views of how I thought each of them were going to be shown I thought Lennie would have been bigger and bulkier and I didn't think Candy was gunna be as grey and frail as he did. I don't believe he would have been happy with the out come of the movie because of all the things they were missing and the actors didn't all meet his discriptions. Also because the acting was horrible nothing seemed anywhere near realistic and the way the characters were presented weren't the same way they were in the story. I think he would be completely let down. I would choose the book any day the book has so much more emotion and feeling which helps you build a connection to it and the detail that is within the story and the words chosen helps you use your imagination to make you own view of everything happening.
Mr. Cleary
03/19/2012 9:53pm
Good listing of scenes not in the movie.
03/16/2012 8:42am
The movie did a solid job on getting the themes of the book across. Differences were mostly new scenes being put in and some from the book being cut out. It was pretty close I guess, some of the dialogue was right out of the book. I honestly thought of Lennie as fatter, also not with that much of a speech issue like with his voice., just kinda the way he talked, like a little kid. Sure, movies have come a long way since the 30's. The book, more descriptive, also more naturalism.
Amelia LaDuke
03/16/2012 8:52am
I liked the movie because im not much of a reader but the books always give more detail and the movie definitly didnt put some of the scenes i really liked in the movie. I wanted the scene with Candy, Lennie, Crooks & Curleys wife. Also the ending of the movie where George kills Lennie didnt seem as intense or detailed like in the book. It was so fast & George didnt seem as upset and confused as in the book. I also think that if Steinbeck had watched this movie he would have wanted more detail.
Tyler Woelfel
03/16/2012 1:01pm
The events in the movie followed most of the book, but there were some major events missing.The movie didn't include the part where Lennie is comptemplating about what he did with the visions of Aunt Clara and the rabbit. I think the charactors were portrayed well. I think Steinbeck would have liked the movie because it closely followed what he wrote. I like the book more because it let you visualize everything instead of having the version of how the director saw the book.
Harrison DeVries
03/16/2012 1:13pm
The book and movie really paralleled nicely except for Curly's wife. They made her seem so innocent. They wanted you to feel bad for her but in the book they had both sides of the story with Curly's wife. The hmean side and the nice side. I also didn't like how they didn't really tells Crooks's story at all or when they talked to Candy. I thought that was a crucial moment in the novel. I did understand however why they left out Lennie's thoughts. That would of ruined the movies entertainment value and it would of made it weird. Carlson's gun bothered me as well because in the story it was a Lugar but in the movie it was a Colt.
Joe Larson
03/16/2012 1:18pm
I believe it's a LugEr.
kyle l
03/16/2012 1:15pm
I thought that the book and the movie were pretty similar. I did also see ways that they were different. In the book Candys dog had no teeth and was gross looking but in the movie the dog looked somewhat healthy and he had his teeth. Also the movie made lennie look like completly retarted and in the book he didnt seem that bad.
Joe Larson
03/16/2012 1:18pm
When i envisioned Lennie while reading the book, I could not imagine anyone. I expected him to be this huge, young, silly-looking guy. Not Bald. The actor who portrayed Lennie did a wonderful job, He made me think of Rain Man. I think Lieutenant Dan was a great choice of actor for George; a little rough-around-the-edges- type guy. I also expected Carlson to be far younger and skinnier than he was and I expected Candy to be more heavyset. I am not sure if I liked the book or the movie better, because I was gone on Wednesday for musicale practice. All in all, I still thought it SUCKED.
Lauren H
03/16/2012 1:19pm
The movie was ok; I liked the book a lot better. The movie was pretty close to the book. Some differences were deleted scenes. They didn't talk about the two cat houses. They also took out the scene where candy and Lennie are in crooks bed room and Curley's wife shows up and they changed the ending removing the part where Lennie talks to the rabbit. In addition they added scenes with Curley's wife. The movie tried to make us viewers more sympathetic for Curley's wife. In the book George has more emotion when he's about to kill Lennie; in the movie he just quickly shoots him and then holds on to the gun. I didn't like the way the movie portrayed Lennie; they made his disability worse then what I thought it was and he was a lot older then what I pictured. I don't think Steinbeck would have loved the movie because they changed the ending making you feel more sympathetic. I liked the book a lot better than the movie. When you're reading the book its more open so you can picture what the characters would look like and act where the movie is more concrete.
Joseph W
03/16/2012 1:24pm
I think that the book was much more descriptive in the end were George was going to kill Lennie. In the book it seemed to me that it took him a lot longer to get himself to shoot him. In the book his hand was shaking and he put the gun down before he shot him like he wasn't sure about it. The way that he shot Lennie in the movie was that he just all of a suddenly shot him. He didn't even through the gun after he did it like he did in the movie. The movie did do a very good job to keeping with the book. There were only few senesce cut out or added in. Lennie was the only actor that I was surprised on. While reading the book I thought that he was bigger yet and smarter. In the movie he wasn't able to talk normal at all. In the book I just thought that he couldn't remember anything. If the author was still alive I think he would have approved of it because the movie didn't take anything big away from it. If the movie ended in a happy way then the movie would have been ruined but it ended similar to the book. The book was better because it got more into detail in the ending.
Mr. Cleary
03/19/2012 10:10pm
I agree with your comments about the movie's ending.
Bruce X.
03/16/2012 1:27pm
To be honest this movie was horrible. One of the worst ways that I can think of, to show naturalism is to show it through a movie. By putting actors to do something that had no emotions doesn't seem really like the book at all. The characters themselves didn't even look like the characters in the book. Lennie isn't big enough and George is too big. Even the dog was off by still having teeth! I like the book and all but the movie brings this book to shame. If John Steinbeck was still alive he would say something like this, "What happened to my book? This ain't even right Curly's wife is wrong; what happened to Crooks' dream; why didn't Candy yell at Curly's wife's dead corpse; what happened to the talk that George and Slim have and what's up with that ending flash of what could have been?"
Dylan Tripoli
03/16/2012 1:30pm
I found that the book was pretty similar to the movie. I noticed that some scenes were added or removed to the movie, but I believe that it was just to make the movie more appealing and interesting to whoever is watching it. Also, the movie was changed a little in order to become a little less Naturalistic. They wanted the end of the movie to make you feel a little better than the end of the book did. I think that Steinbeck would have liked the movie, except for the ending. This is because he was a naturalist, and didn't really believe in ending a story a certain way in order to make you feel better. I thought the book was better just because it was more descriptive and I liked the characters my mind created better than the ones in the movie for some reason. Lenny was the most different. I pictured him as more of a really tall and buff guy who could lift or carry anything, not a middle aged man who really did not seem that big or strong… But the movie was still good, none the less.
Marissa Grapentine
03/16/2012 1:32pm
The book and the movie were pretty similar except for a couple parts. The movie definitely showed more emotion than the book and I felt more into the movie than the actual book. The book was very straight forward and didn't show the same reactions as the movie did when it came to big events in the storyline. The movie made me feel bad for Curley's wife unlike the book where I thought she was a tart and a mean character. George and Lennie were exactly how I imagined them in the movie and same with Curley and Candy. Steinbeck probably wouldn't approve of the movie because it didn't show as much Transcendentalism as the book did and there were many scenes left out in the movie that the book spent a lot of time on. I liked the movie better because I felt more attached to the characters and it moved along nicely.
Mr. Cleary
03/19/2012 10:13pm
naturalism rather than transcendentalism
Caitlin Ryan
03/16/2012 1:34pm
I think that the book and the movie were very similar, but the book went into more detail about some of the important scenes. There were a few scenes that were added into the movie that were not in the book. Such as when George walked the mule into the barn and Curly's wife walked in and was talking to him. In the movie they left out a few scenes as well. For example when Lennie was envisioning his aunt Clara and George, also they left out the confrontation between Curly's wife and Crooks in his room. I personally liked the book better than the movie, because I didn't like how the movie portrayed some of the characters. For example in the movie Curly's wife seemed more innocent and just wanting someone to talk to, whereas in the book the author made her out to be a character who was trying to cause trouble. I also was not a fan of Lennie's character. They made him a lot older and more mentally handicapped then I was imagining. I think that if John Steinbeck watched the movie he would approve. Even though the movie changed a few things it still kept the same story line.
03/19/2012 8:00am
I think that the book and movie were very similar but the book was still better. I think if the movie would have included the small details the book had then it would have been better. There were scenes that were added into the book that weren't in the movie and seemed like there was no point to them being there. Also they missed some pretty important parts such as when Curly's wife comes into Crook's room when Lenny and Candy are there and says that she knows everything. Also the part where Lenny sees Aunt Clara and the giant rabbit were not in there and I think that was a really important part of the book. The characters were not potryed the same way in the movie as I thought they were going to be. I had envisioned completly different characters. I don't think that Steinbeck would have approved because the movie left out important parts of the book that really contributed to whole ending of the story. Also I believe that Steinbeck would say that some of what he envisioned was not potrayed correctly like the ending scene. I personally think that the book was much better because it had so much detail. Overall I think the book was MUCH better.
marlena frame
03/19/2012 12:25pm
The movie and the book were about the same there was some parts in the movie that were not added to the movie. The book is telling what the book is saying. I thought Lenni was more different but he wasn't in the movie. If Steinbeck would of seen the movie he would of liked it.
Amber Lilyquist
03/20/2012 10:41am
I thought Crooks was very different in the movie from the book. In the movie he seems a bit more cooky like part of his brain is messed up, where as in the book he's just a stubborn black man. Also I noticed the gun that killed Lennie was different, i don't remember what it was in the book but I know it wasn't a revolver. The dog in the movie didn't seem as bad as they described in the book, it was disapointing. I'd have to say that the book was way better than the movie since it went into greater detail and the characters are how the author wanted them to be, unlike the movie.
Emily Vorpagel
03/20/2012 12:36pm
I think that both the movie and the book were very similar to eachother, however it think that the book was more in depth and more descriptive with background information and such. I didnt get to see much of the movie but from what i heard it skipped some very important scenes as well as added some. I think that with the book you also got more of a feel for how challanged he actually was,i think in the movie i feel like he is put out to be more challanged than he actually is and i feel like it was taking away some of the affect. I believe that the book was a lot better and easier to understand. I prefer the book over the movie.
Adam Hernandez
03/20/2012 6:57pm
While reading the book, I expected Lennie to be, huge, young, and goofy-looking.Certainly with hair! Although the acting was very good, many of the characters in the book did not match the appearance of them in the movie. Another example, Carlson. I thought he would be younger, and more trim than he was in the movie, and i actually thought Candy would be a little more heavy! From what i saw of the movie, I think I still like the book better. The images it creates are far more entertaining.
Taylor Radder
03/20/2012 8:16pm
In some ways the book and movie were very alike. The dialogue between the two were the most similar. The way they talked and the words talked were exactly like in the book. But the movie added some scenes that made parts of it confusing. I, however, for one of the first times for me, like the book more than the movie. The characters were pretty much how I expected them to be like. *Especially Lenny* I liked the book more because i enjoy picturing how it all plays out in my head. And I liked my head's version better. Also I think Steinbeck would not approve of this movie because it added and changed parts of the book that were not intended.
Val Liebmann
03/22/2012 7:19am
I personally enjoyed the movie more because I dont really like reading and I like seeing visual things better. As far as the differences go between the movie and the book, the movie was less descpritive as the book. The scene where George killed Lennie, it went really fast and that was a little weird. As it was explained in the book he took longer to shoot him unlike the movie.
Damon Odgers
03/22/2012 7:21am
I think that the movie stayed pretty true to the book. The movie, however, did exclude some important parts from the book. For instance, in the movie, when Lennie went into Crooks room, the part with Curley's wife never happened. Also, at the end, George did not seem even a little shaky when he was about to shoot Lennie. He also did not throw the gun afterwards. The guys did not come running in afterwords. I think other than that though, the characters and the dialogue did not change too much from the movie. I think steinbeck would have approved of the movie.
Emily Ruehle
03/23/2012 8:49am
I missed some of the movie but the parts that I did see were pretty true to the book. The part that I saw that was different than the book was where George was going to kill Lennie. I envisioned that entire scene differently. George was supposed to be more shakey. The characters where a little bit different in my head, but once I saw them on screen I thought that the actors were perfect. Steinbeck would like the movie and would've approved of it
Jared Baratka
04/04/2012 1:06pm
I think the book and the movie compared the way most book/movie combos tend to compare: It wasn't exactly like the book, dissatisfying some, but most are glad the movie came out so that they can actually physically see it instead of imagining it. I think Steinbeck would have approved the characters, seeing as they did a really good job of portraying what happens in the book, but I feel like certain left out scenes could make him disapprove.
fuck the cock
11/03/2014 2:25pm
Leave a Reply.