No more than two years after the book, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee was published, the movie version was released. Sparking much controversy, people argued whether the book communicated the storyline the best or whether the movie summed everything up, although it is apparent that the novel is better. This is because the characters, setting, and plot are drawn out in an easy-to-understand yet exquisite tale, rather than the movie, which skipped over plot, storyline, and was overall confusing. The characters develop the story. Without characters, there really is no story. In the book To Kill a Mockingbird, the main characters are Scout and Jem, as the pair mature and go on adventures together-keywords, pair and together. In the movie, …show more content…
But think about the setting like this: To Kill a Mockingbird takes place in the fictional place of Maycomb, Alabama during the Great Depression, but what if it took place in Antarctica during the ice age? That would change pretty much the whole novel (but it would make for an interesting story). Therefore, it was vital that the movie depict most scenes as accurate as it could-and oh, it did, but it the film also messed up. For instance, in one scene, Jem and Scout stumble upon Tim Johnson in the book. They play around and then decide to go and alert Calpurnia, who, in return, flips out over the fact that the kids could have gotten hurt. In the movie, the kids are in the house when they see the dog, causing Calpurnia to flip out over… well, she just kind of freaks out, no explanation. This causes a ripple in the film, making it confusing. In another scene, Bob Ewell spits on Atticus and calls him names and such-except in the book, they are all alone when this happens (excluding the snooping Stephanie Crawford that just so happens to be walking by). In the movie, there is a crowd of black people sitting on the steps when this happens, and, although this comminicates with the audicance that Bob Ewell is a racist, it just takes away from the