Journal Entry 61: Film v Book

Compare and contrast the film version of Gary Paulsen's Hatchet with the novel version. How are they alike? How are they different? What can an author do with a novel that a filmmaker cannot do? What can a filmmaker do that an author cannot? What is it about each medium that makes it able to tell a story in a special way?

We haven't finish the movie yet, so I'm just going to compare the book with some parts of the movie. Some events that happened in the movie is a little bit different from the book, even though what they're trying to show might be the same. For example, in my imagination, the forest was grander, and Brian's house was right next to the lake. Also, when the pilot died, the whole plane was supposed to stink and the pilot was supposed to fart first. I also thought that Brian's hatchet would be a bit larger, because the hatchet in the movie seem so small that it looks like it can't even cut branches. The movie also added some random stuff, like the bear attacking Brian. In the book, the bear never touched Brian at all and actually "helped" Brian find more food. Another weird and disgusting thing the movie added was Brian eating worms (mayjor ewwwww), Brian never ate any worms in the book and I wonder if the movie will show Brian eating turtle eggs (another ewww), but I think maybe the director used worms instead of turtle eggs because bugs are much cheaper. Authors can have all the time to entertain readers and let them use their imagination to "see" the story. Everyone's version of the story might be a little different, yet everyone's version is the best version to themselves, unlike movies. Most people think the books are so much better than books when they read the book first. Books are so much better, even though it may not have any visual effects, but you can imagine them! Filmmakers can restrict what people see, unlike books, and I think that may sometimes be a good thing, but it rarely is.