What is the major differences between the movie and book version of merchant of venice?
94781
i think maybe for the movie version the creaters or the producers cut out some of the book's version & replaced the cut off stuff with other things or they could've added more things that weren't in the book\nmy advice is watch the movie version and read the book & if u need help doing that try google or amazon
557361
If you enjoyed the book, you'll like the movie.  they are very similar.  I would recommend seeing it in the theater if possible.  I think all good movies are better in the theater.  But do NOT take your baby!  \n\nIf you can't get out anytime soon though, you may as well save some money and wait for the DVD. \n\nI don't think you'll be disappointed w/the movie though.  Ian McKellan is excellent as Teabing!\n\nAnd just to comment on the person above me...I think it totally depends on where you live and how many showings your theater has.  For me, some showings were sold out, but I just walked up 10 min. before the movie started and was able to get tickets for my showing.  I haven't NOT been able to get tickets for a movie I wanted to see in like 2 years...since less people go to the movies these days.
594754
Is a widely successful novel written by Dan Brown, that spent 156 weeks as a number one fiction novel. The movie adaptation  has created a lot of hype, excitement and anger throughout the world. In its first weekend, the movie brought in $77 million in the US and $224 Million world wide. Reviews of the movie have been lukewarm, but that doesn't see to have had any affect on those flocking to see it.
451824
The Beach, it was made into a movie several years ago with Leonardo Dicaprio, but the book is so much better.  I wish I could remember the author for you.  \n\nAlso, I recommend The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime; A Seperate Peace; A Tree Grows in Brooklyn; and Catch-22.  \n\nThese are some of my personal favorites, I hope you like them too!
1021701
Oh, wow. Try reading it!  If you don't have time, do Cliff's Notes (but those summaries are sooo boring compared to the real stories). You can also watch the movie version derived from the Broadway play adaptation. \n\nhttp://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/Steinbeck/mice.html\n\nhttp://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/Belmont_HS/mice/\n\nhttp://www.sparknotes.com/lit/micemen/\n\nhttp://www.gradesaver.com/classicnotes/titles/miceandmen/\n\nMovie rental: http://www.blockbuster.com/search/PerformKeyWordSearchAction.action
988022
I dont' have the book handy, but it is in the very first book.  Check out the scene where Hagrid first takes Harry to Dagon Alley and Gringotts.  Theres a full explanation there.
424742
The book is true. Like any book turned into a movie the director or script writer make changes to the story. Sometimes it's leaving out things not considered important or sometimes they sew up loose ends so they can close the story without people expecting a sequel. \n\nSee the section Historical Errors for other changes made to the movie
215147
Seen the movie. haven't read the book
551940
read the book seen the movie, both are great, though book is by far better. \n\nthe moral is knowing to stand up for ones who can't stand up to them themselves. \n\nhope it helps!
973434
The book is better than the movie and neither are outstanding.  they are ok.  It would be hard to follow the movie and really understand what is happening without reading the book.  I think both book and movie have been highly over-rated.\n\nIn terms of getting to sit and watch a movie - maybe if you have a portable DVD player and you take it into the bathroom with you and lock the door and refuse to come out until it is finished!!  When y kids were little that was the only place I could read for a few minutes!  How about hubby taking care of the kids for a couple of hours so you can watch a movie undisturbed?  Otherwise, hire a baby-sitter for a few hours so you and hubby can go to a  movie.  I sympathize!!  Best of luck!  They do grow up and before you know it the house will be quiet!!
798388
You could use The Merchant of Venice for a project on gender roles.  Many critics agree that the nature of Antonio and Bassanio's relationship is homoerotic, and perhaps one-sidedly so.  The women in the book play a unique role in the fact that they provide the final judgement of Shylock, but their opinions/logic are only considered because they dress as men.  Lorenzo also admires Jessica in an erotic way when she dresses as a boy.  There's also the anti-Semitic facet of the text, if you wanted to go that route, as well as the role of merchants, money-lending, greed.  There is a wide range of criticism on this piece, because a lot of the themes and elements are somewhat ambiguous.
1160292
to answer all three of your questions, i'm sure your local library has a copy of hercules you can take out for free.  watch it, and then you'll know... I usually don't leave answers like this, but in your case, i think it'd be in your best interest... it's not a book, its a movie,  and if it's the disney version you're talking about it's only an hour and a half long.
641405
I saw it. And I liked it very much.\n\nThe movie was a very good representation of the book.\n\nBooks always have more background and more details.\n\nSome things were changed or deleted, to keep\nthe story moving, but all-in-all my wife and\nI thought the movie exceeded the expectations\nwe had about what the movie could have been.\n\nBravo!!
867891
The movies were fairly similar to the books.  There were notable omissions...\n-Tom Bombadil...but the whole focus on him really does nothing to advance the story.  And for Hollywood, things that don't advance a story are usually not in the movie.\n-The Scouring of the Shire...an interesting chapter in the last book, but would have caused confusion in the movies.  The ring has already been destroyed at this point, which essentially "saves the world", so adding another "climax" to the movie would not have allowed the movie to flow properly.  Books can get away with stuff like that...movies not so much.  \n\nThere were also some notable changes.  For example, whereas the movie portrays Boramir dying in the first film, he actually doesn't die until the 2nd book (The Two Towers)...though it is towards the beginning.  Arwen is at best a minor character in the books. So when you see Arwen trying to save Frodo, the book character was actually Glorfindel...and it was Gandalf and Elrond who sent the flood of waters.  SHe is a very minor character in the actual story...only appearing four times and a romance between Aragorn and Arwen is only hinted at.  Arwen doesn't play a role in the books except for the Appendices in which her relationship with Aragorn is described.  Eowyn has more of a role than Arwen did...and in "The History of Middle Earth" it is revealed that Aragorn was supposed to marry her.  Her role in the books, however, are still minor.  \n\nIt's been said that the Tolkien family didn't approve of how Jackson made the story.  First of all, not all the Tolkien family was bothered by it.  J.R.R. Tolkien's grandson was in support of it.  J.R.R. Tolkien's son was not.  His son was not upset by the screenplays, just the fact that it was made into a movie.  He felt that it shouldn't be made into a movie.  Of course, that's inconsistent with the fact that there has been another, albeit animated, adaptation.  But J.R.R. Tolkien's son was very much like J.R.R. Tolkien himself...in that he didn't really like technology.  This is why the stories are very much against machines, etc...and you see those things destroying nature and a simple way of life.  It was Tolkien's beliefs and feelings reflecting into his writings.  \n\nAny nitpicky fan will tear the movies apart and point out its flaws.  But for the most part, the movies are pretty consistent with the books.  Nitpicky fans are going to one day have to realize that if everything was done exactly how the book was written, just one movie would last for HOURS.  And Jackson already was turned away by one movie company (Miramax) for simply wanting to makee three movies.
140326
The extended version of a movie includes scenes that were removed for the theatrical version (the version shown in theatres). In the case of the LOTR, I felt that the extended versions were better than the theatrical - the story benefited from the extra storytelling. This isn't true for all movies, though.
646904
Well, I saw the movie first, then read the book, and I liked the movie more. It's my favorite movie. I would say people get hung on it because (1) The music gets stuck in your head forever. (2) His version is pretty different. He put more of a romantic side on the phantom, where in the book, he was just pretty scary. I mean, A.L.W. changed the story a lot. So it would actually be kind of weird for Leroux to take the credit for alw's story. And the characters are different in the play and movie version.
798549
i believe she does talk in the movie b'coz she did talk in the book and i don think the makers of the movie will make such a major change.....................\n(P.S.-Read the book its awesome)