Friday, March 1, 2013

A Wrinkle in Time


Now that we've read the book and watched the movie, I'm curious what you think! In your comment, tell me at least two differences you noticed between the book and the movie. Then tell which you preferred and why. Please use complete sentences with good punctuation, spelling, and capitalization.

40 comments:

  1. In the book of A Wrinkle in Time the movie was different because Mrs. Which didn't drag out her syllables. Also the book portrayed Aunt Beast as a octopus thing when she looked like a lady chewbacca.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There were some differences between the book and the movie. One was that Mrs. Who didn't hold out her words in the movie like in the book. The second was that It was bigger in the movie than he was in the book. There are other differences, but those are some I noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The movie and book of A Wrinkle in Time were very different in many ways. 1)The place where Aunt Beast lived was supposed to be covered in flowers, and sort of like a huge meadow. 2) When Charles Wallace was showing Calvin the picture of Father, Charles described him with a shaggy, messy, beard. 3) IT was supposed to be in the middle of the room, on a little sort of stage, and MUCH smaller than it was in the movie. 4) Mrs. Whatsit was supposed to have stolen sheets.
    Overall, I liked the book more than the movie.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The differences were the dads leg was never broken in the book but it was in the movie.Another difference was that Mrs.who's glasses where those kind of ones with the mustache and big nose.I think the movie was better because I got to see what the charachters looked like.

    ReplyDelete
  5. These are the differences I saw.One is the three ladies. Mrs. Who wasn't as old as she was on the cover of the book. Mrs. Which didn't talk same in the movie. The other thing was IT. I thought IT wasn't the size of a pool. I thought IT was a little bigger than our brains. I thought the book was better. The movie gave me a picture but what I saw while reading the book was different. I thought the beasts would be like a green octopus but they looked like chewbacas sister.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There were lots of different things from the movie and the book, one was that The Man with Red Eyes never fed Meg, Charrels, and Calvin. Then IT was not as small as I thought it would be. I thought the book was better, because it gave more detail.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's hard to say but I kinda liked the book better because it was in better order. They also left alot of stuff out in the movie like the man with red eye's said 1x1 is 1. Or meg didnt wear glasses. The movie also had very bad acting.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There were differences in the book and the movie. In the movie the brain was a WHOLE lot bigger than the book had said. Also in the book Mrs.Whatsit was a majestic creature were as in the book it looked like a dolphin with legs. I thought the movie was better because it gave you a chance to look at everything.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The movie A Wrinkle in Time was very different than the book. Some things that were different were that Calvin's hair was not red and curly like the book said. Meg was not as ugly as I thought she would be she did not have braces and glasses. The movie was good but I think the book was better because it had more detail.

    ReplyDelete
  10. THe were many diferences in the book but the most noticeable was when they were rescuing their dad, in the book it had Charles Wallace with them but in the movie they didn't. another thing was that the Happy Medium was a girl and a boy in the book and a boy in the movie.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hannah Blackburn #2 I am awesome! totallyMarch 1, 2013 at 12:51 PM

    There are many differences in the book and the movie. One is Mrs.Which. I thought she didn't stretch out her words as much as she did in the book. I thought that she would look more like a witch than an angel! Another thing is that I thought the characters would look a lot different than they were in the movie. I also thought that Mrs.Who would use fraising more often. Personally, I thought that the movie was better because I think they made the story make more since, and I like when stories make since!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Faith Santiago #15March 1, 2013 at 12:51 PM

    In the movie Mrs.Who did not like spread words out in the book they did not tell us what they were waring,in the movie the boys were wearing blue and the girls were waring pink, my favorite thing in this book is when Meg saves Charls Wallas but the movie was the best.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I thought that A Wrinkle in Time movie was better than the book because I thought that the movie had more deatail and I thought that I could understand it better in the movie.Some things that are different are Megs hair and at the end they didn't kiss.I liked the movie a lot better.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Trinity Pack #13March 1, 2013 at 2:45 PM

    well the book was ok but i liked the movie because you could see the stuff and it was it gave detail.the things that are different are that meg in the book said that she had glasses and braces but in the movie she did not and in the movie the dad had a broken leg and in the book it did not.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In the book the was no part where Meg is at home with the papers but in the movie they added the scene. There was no restaurant with the milkshakes they are just in a room. I liked the book better because there are smaller details and I have a great mental picture of the book.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I liked the book significally better because the directors and producers changed so many aspects of the original book such as the centaur thing that Mrs. Whatsit transformed into was totally computerized, and Mrs. Which ddrreeww out her words. Also, IT was not supposed to be that gigantic and that it was in a whole different building, not in the floor. The book had many details which I liked, but the centaur thing is just wierd even in the book. One thing I really liked was Aunt Beast, but they didn't give her that name. To sum it all up, I did not like the movie or the book, but if I had to choose, I'd rather read the book.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I liked the book better because you could visualize it for yourself and so it looked the way you wanted it too. One of the changes in the movie was that in the book, it says that when Meg is in the transparent column, she takes Mrs Who's glasses off and instantaneously couldn't see anything. Another is in the book, the land where Aunt Beast lives, it describes the land as grey and dull. In the movie, it has snow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I liked the movie better because I did not have to imagine what was going on in the story like I did while reading the book. I have to say the book was good because in the movie they left out a few details. An example is, in the beginning of the movie Calvin did not know what was going on, but in the book he new as much as Charles. Also in the book, IT was a brain inside something, but in the movie IT was controlling the dark thing around Earth. In the movie, when the man with the red eyes took control of Charles both were playing a game together, but in the book Charles just looked into his eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anderson B. Liddle #9March 3, 2013 at 10:00 AM

    I personally didn't like either the book or the movie but I liked book better. The reason why I like the book better is because in the movie, they made the Aunt Beast look like a retarded Chewbacca without the blaster. Now lets down to business. The diference between the movie and the book is multiple things. First, IT was a mountain of a brain in the movie while in the book is was slightly bigger than a regular brain. Two, in the movie there was no delivery boy with a weird motorcycle mixed up with a bike but yet he was in the book. I give the movie a 2/10 and the book 3/10. So this ends my review.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I liked the movie better than then book. The movie was better because the movie described some of the parts you couldn't understand in the book. A difference I notice was that the beasts did not float or have tentacles. Another difference I saw was that in the book it said the kid was bouncing the ball and screaming, but in the movie he wasn't screaming.

    ReplyDelete
  21. IT is a character in both the book and the movie. But I noticed two main differences between the book and the movie. In the book IT was only slightly bigger than a human brain, but in the movie it was gigantic in size. I even thought IT was a huge pile of snakes when I first saw it in the movie. Another difference I noticed were that it the book it said,that Mrs. Who tessered Meg to Camozotz but, in the movie Meg tessered herself to Camozotz. So, if I had to pick between the movie and the book I would pick the movie because the movie was much more detailed than the book.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I noticed two differences between "A Wrinkle In Time" book and movie. The book described IT as slightly larger than a normal human brain. In the movie, however, IT is a large room-sized mass. Another difference I found was that the planet, Ixchel, was a grey, grassy field in the book, but in the movie, Ixchel was white and snowy. I preferred the movie because it brought the imagination of the book to life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. In the book, the man with red eyes saysto Charles Wallace, "Once one is one" and so on. In the movie, he just stares into his eyes and controlled him. I liked the book better because it gave more detail.

    ReplyDelete
  24. When we read and watched "A Wrinkle In Time" there were a lot of differences. One was IT seemed a lot bigger in the movie, where in the book IT was just slightly larger than an average brain. Another difference I found was that the planet, Ixchel, was shown as a snowy and white wonderland, where as in the book it was described as a dull and grass and a grey planet. In conclusion, I preferred the book because it gave a lot more detail than the movie.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would say that I really don't care for the movie or the book, but, if I had to choose, I would definitely read the book. The movie plainly made fun of the pegasus that Mrs. Whatsit transformed into. Really? Rainbow wings? Whoever was writing this movie totally had writer's block. The movie did express the Happy Medium well, though. He/She really was convincingly merry all the time. When he/she fell asleep, I was reminded of the book. The book allowed the freedom to imagine the character in whatever way you liked. The movie, however, forced you to assume that Meg looked this way, or that Charles Wallace looked that way. Overall, I definitely enjoyed the book more.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I noticed that the brain went from "slightly bigger than a humans" to the size of a giant building. I also noticed that the book said the were 3 beasts that came to Meg but in the movie only Aunt Beast came out. I preferred the movie because it was more dramatic and funny and IT was awesome!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I liked the movie much better than the movie. The IT (brain thingy) was bigger than I thought it was. At the end it didn't say that the sun came up on Camazotz.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The book and movie are similar but also very different. IT was not how it was described in the book. IT went from just slightly bigger than a brain to a snake/worm looking thing. Also, Mrs. Which looked a lot different than I pictured her. I didn't really like either but if I had to pick IT would be the movie because it was very dramatic.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I liked the movie better because you could see what was happening and it gave detail. IT was creepy,it looked a little bit bigger than a humans brain. I pictured Meg,Calvin,and all the other characters different in my mind. Meg had glasses in the book,but in the movie she didn't and in the book she had braces,but in the movie she didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  30. In the movie Miss. Whatsit
    was tall, but in the book it said she was a smaller
    person and was dressed in mostly rags. Also in the book they said that miss witch never really fully showed her body.in the movie she most always showed her full body. I liked the movie better.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I really don't like either, if I had to choose I liked the movie. It never said anything about a sand storm in the book. Also they never at with the Red Eye Man.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The book and movie had there simaleritys and differences.I noticed that the book dad way more discripion then the movie.The way the book discribes Meg is not the same as what Meg looked like in the movie.The way the movie was was not the way I emagend it.If I had to pick I would pick the book because is gave a lot of detail.I would also choose it because I love reading.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I thought the movie was better, because it gave me a better image of what was happening. In the movie Meg didn't have glasses, as she did in the book. IT was also different. The book describes IT as a little bigger than a human's brain. The movie has IT as a huge snake looking thing. I would have never pictured IT as something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I thought the movie was better, because the movie was less con confusing and I had a picture or a image to look at. In the movie Meg was not as mean or had a big attitude. But in the movie Meg had no glasses or braces. In the book when IT was telling Charles that when he would come in to IT he would not want out but in the movie IT had two huge books of things Charles like. I like the movie so much better.

    ReplyDelete
  35. i did not mean to put con

    ReplyDelete
  36. Annabel Williams :) #18March 4, 2013 at 2:38 PM

    I think the movie was a better view at what it would be like. The book definitely gives much more details but, I'm more visual then reading. A big difference I saw was Meg. She was not "ugly" like described in the book and had no braces or glasses. I also remember Central Central Intelligence (CCI) was much smaller than said in the book. CCI was opposed to be 100 or so story's high, but in the movie it was only about 20 or 30 story's high. CCI was also suppose to be more an Emerald color then a light yet dull green. As well IT was supposed to be in a completely different building then CCI. IT was told to be in a dome like building with a purple florescent glow shining from it. As many others said IT was supposed to be a slightly bigger version then the average human brain an NOT the size of China. Also The "Red eyed Man" was read to be in a chair, out in the end of a long corridor in a in a transparent wall in CCI. Instead he appeared after Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin had found dad. There were also two land differences. (Last ones!) The land where the Happy Medium lived was supposed to be dull and almost lifeless. In the movie it was happy and had lots of flowers. The land were Aunt Beast and the others were living was covered in snow and ice caves. As in the book it was opposed that the grass and flowers were gray. Even though the movie had a "few" differences I still prefer the movie rather then the book.

    ReplyDelete
  37. If I have to chose between the book and the movie, I would prefer the book. I said that because the book was more exciting. One way the book was diffrent from the book was when Meg went through the wall, Charles Walles should of have already been controlled by IT. Another reason why thay where different was the characters in the book looked nothing like the people in the movie. Meg was supposed to have glasses and braces, and Calvin was supposed to have red hair not brown. So overall I liked the book more than the movie.

    ReplyDelete
  38. In the movie the man with red eyes was walking around instead of sitting in a chair like in the book. In the book It was only slightly bigger than a regular humans brain but in the movie It was giant. But all in all I liked the book more because I could visualize what I wanted them to look like not what the movie made the look like.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I preferred the book more then the movie.It gave more detail, and was more exciting.In the movie the characters were nothing like they described them in the book.Another thing is, Charles Wallace's eyes turned red,and not blue, because in the book they said his eyes turned blue. .So that is why I liked the book more then the movie.

    ReplyDelete
  40. i did not mean to put two periods

    ReplyDelete