VS. 
Use this post to discuss your opinions on the movie we viewed in class in relation to the book. What differences did you notice? Why do you think the filmmakers decided to change the story? Did it improve Hemingway's original story? As with the below discussion on the book, you are encouraged to provide your opinions and respond to your classmates' comments. Please post at least 2 comments by the end of the day on Monday, 2/11.
88 comments:
Who are the guy and girl that came out of no where in the beginning?
Do you think that the man in the movie who is concerned and intrested in the old man is supposed to be Ernest Hemingway? The man is a writer as Ernest Hemingyway was and just how the filmmakers changed the story it could mean to be him. Ernest Hemingyway takes his wife to to an island and is inspired by a an old man. Thats why he wrote OMAS. So i think the guy could be him because he is a writer and at one point in the movie was writing about the old man.
In the movie the old man never catches a dolphin and takes the flying fish out of it. When his hand cramps it doesnt show him eating the tuna or even catching it in the first place.
The only part i liked about the movie was when Santiago was fighting the sharks. Everything else was boring, like when the author and his wife were talking in alot of the scenes. I think the movie was ok, but the book was better. The difference of the movie was that the movie had extra scenes. Also, the quotes were different, like when the waiter said the most important thing in life is respect, and they showed a flashback of when Santiago was married. I think the director made the movie different because they wanted to make the movie longer than the book. They probably also wanted to make the movie more interesting, but it actually made it more boring (in my opinion).
The film and the book are similar to each other and different. The film used a lot of dialog from the book, so that the characters feels and emotion in it. In the film they didn’t show the blood from the marlin, soothe sharks can detect.
Okay, I'm pretty convinced that the two American people were supposed to kind of reflect Hemingway, himself. Because think about it-- an American WRITER,trying to find himself. Hemingway did have some personality/character flaws, no? Uhm, yes! And this writer seems to have some problems, himself. What was he doing in Cuba, anyway?
I found it very interesting that the movie included Santiago's daughter. At first, I didn't think there was much of a point of adding her to the story line, but as I thought about it, I realized there was a very good reason to put her in. I feel they put his daughter in because in the book, they mentioned that Santiago is very lonely and only has the boy to talk to. In the movie, he has his daughter but he decides not to talk to her much, showing that he chooses to be lonely. I think the writers put the daughter in for that reason exactly, to show that he chooses to be lonely.
The movie was disapointing. I thought the book was decent, but the movie was very boring. I found myself frequently thinking, "when will this end?" I think the director included scenes with the man and the woman so that it wouldn't be constantly focused on the man, in which case it would be even more boring, because the man would have to be constantly talking to himself or the fish would have to be constantly doing something to interest the audience, neither of which would be particularly enjoyable to watch. Also, the fish's antics would become tedious after a while. However, the scenes on land with the man and woman were not particularly enjoyable either; I found them a little corny, especially the one where he says, "I just have a feeling that something is happening here, and I can't leave now!" I think this sort of "6th sense" that he develops all of a sudden was a little out of place in the realistic plot. Howver, I did like the fact that the movie, except for the man and the woman, stayed pretty close to the book. I also immediately noticed that the boy was not a very talented actor.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the unknown man in the movie is suppose to be Ernest Hemingway.If I'm right then I think he put himself in the movie because he wanted to show the viewers why he was inspired to make this book.
in the movie Santiago came back in the morning with everyone watching him and he fell out the boat do you think this was because he was embarrassed that he had no fish and everyone was staring at him? is this why Hemingway made Santiago come back at night?
I believe that the O.M.A.S movie was dissiponting. I thought that from the book it would have been an satisfying movie. The reporter and his wife came out of nowhere and they made no diffrence in the movie. Also in the movie there was no daughter of Santago. In the book Ernest Hemingway made Santiagos shack seemed much smaller than it looked like in the movie. Also santiago was never dreaming about lions on the beach in africa. I liked the video with pictures better than the film.
ji i think that the "guy and the girl" in the beggining were reorters from America.
The movie and the book were very different from each other. One thing is that the book only follows the old man and only tells about Manolin when he is with Santiago.
I think the American couple was supposed to be Ernest and Mary Hemingway because he was a writer and she seemed to have drinking problems. For instance, when she said something like, People here drink for pleasure unlike us in North America who drink to keep away from depression, which is what i think I'm doing. As I recall, the documentary on Ernest Hemingay told us that Mary Hemingway was an alcoholic.
In the book, most of time Santiago is in his skiff talking to himself or dreaming about the lions. The book is written around Santiago catching the fish, it's the main focus. In the movie, though its focused around Santiago mostly but is also focused around the American couple but mostly the man. There is also Santiago's daughter, who isn't so nice to Santiago and is focused around Manolin a little too.
The friendship that Manolin and Santiago have didn't pull through so much in the movie. At first it would seem like Santiago was related to Manolin but when the waiter mentions it to the American writer, the fact that they aren't related pulls through. It is a little harder to be as descriptive in a movie as it is in a book so its understandable why the movie isn't as detailed.
The changes in the movie were for entertainment, I'm sure. It would be very boring if the movie only followed Santiago because most of the book was description and thought.
in the movie they show santiago's daughter and in the book they never talk about her. They also show santiago's wedding they never talk about his wedding and or his wife in the book but in the movie they do.
I did not like how the fast Santiago caught the Marline. It did not even seem like it took 3 days.
I was kind of looking forward to seeing how the Portugese Man-of-War would be portrayed in the movie and I was kind of dissapointed when it did'nt make an appearance.
In the book, Santiago ate the dolphin fish to end his cramp, but in the movie Santiago's cramp healed after he hit his cramped hand against his leg.
In the movie Santiago never said that he would say 100 Hail Marys or Blessed Mother if he is able to catch the marlin.
first of all, I think that the movie included a lot of un-necessary characters, such as the daughter. The old man's point was that he was supposed to be all alone except for the boy, not have an obnoxious daughter.
Second, I think that the way they tried to make the movie more dramatic with the write and the daughter was corny and it didn't leave enough room for them to show everything that really happened in the book. I felt that they made up their own story, then tried to fit as much of the book as they could in it.
Lastly, I think that the acting was not very good in the movie. None of them really made believeable characters. IN contrast to the book, the movie's Santiago seemed tired and annoyed with the boy. Also, he had different accents in almost every scene.
Even though it included hardly any of the book, the movie seemed to drag on and on and on. I would rather have watched another movie version of this book because there is one word to describe this movie--a failure.
the book was a lot better than the movie. the movie left out some parts in the book like at the end of the book, when tourists looked at the fish and asked a man at the bar "what is that?". Also, the movie kept going back and forth between the writer from america and Santiago. There was no writer in the book. There also wasn't Santiago's daughter in the book.
ji 7/8-1,
the guy and girl at the beginning of the movie are Ernest Hemmingway and his wife when they moved to Cuba.
I personally think that the movie was not as good as the book. They may have added more depth to each of the characters, but they left out many important scenes such as: the marlin circling the boat, Santiago's dreams about the lions, Santiago's dream about the porpoises, and many other scenes as well. Also, while the movie added new characters, all they're used for is to create other unimportant scenes rather than show Santiago struggling with catching the fish. To be fairly honest, I usually like the book more than the movie because the book allows you to experience more detail and storyline while the movie usually cuts the story in half to fit the length of the average movie viewer's attention span which is aproximately 90 minutes and then uses transitions based on parts of the story to fill in any gaps. In the movie making industry, movies like this are common so its not bad, just not good enough to be liked. Its not that I like the movie, but I think its just average, and that is why it does not earn my ire nor my love.
Anyways, did anyone notice that Santiago did not have his hat on him when he was being towed by the marlin?
I agree with both p.t as well as y.s. I also have the feeling that the tourists-- the man and his wife-- most likely emulate Ernest Hemmingway. Actually, I never really realized that that could be the case until I read both of these prior comments. It is a very interesting point to be made.
Like most of the people who have posted comments, I also believe that the movie was extremely boring. Although the book was not all that great either, at least you got a better sense of what was going on during most of the story.In the movie, I understand that there was the need to add more scenes to be able to enhance the story line, however, by doing so, the directors left out the gist of the novel. Also, the movie did not seem very realistic. Such as when the fish was dragging Santiago along. That definitely did not seem like he was going through that for three days. And, in terms of the sharks,that didnt look real either. Overall, I believe the movie could have been a lot more interesting if the directors developed the story line in a much more interesting way.
I wonder why the director put the "Unknown man/ woman" in the film. They didn't really have a purpose. If that was supposed to be Hemingway why didn't he state his name at all? I think it would have made more sence if we knew who they were.
A response to ji from 7/8-1, is that the guy and girl from the beginning of the movie is an american couple. The guy is an american writer. In the book, they are mentioned briefly in the end. They ask what was caught, and they think a shark. But in the movie, they are important to the story.
I liked how in the movie, when Santiago was out fishing with the marlin, the movie brought you back to the village. In the book, I got pretty bored reading about Santiago and the fish for about eighty to ninty pages. By coming back to the village, it made me more interested in the movie.
I agree with c.n. 781. I feel that since the couple came out of no where, all it added was confusion. Also, i agree that the size of Santiago's house was very misleading- the book had been very specific about how small it was and the movie showed that it wasn't as bad as it seemed. These differences make it very hard to write one summary of the OMAS story line because the differences the movie producers made were important to the book.
I agree with y.l. 782. I noticed in the movie that the old man was always rude to the boy and didn't really want him around, and that really messed up the story. The boy never seemed to care how rude the old man was, and that also messed things up because it didn't seem real. Only a few times did i see that they threw something in that made it seem that the old man cared about the boy, like when he told his daughter that he was "well taken care of" and when they mentioned (only once) that he wished the boy was there with him. That changed a large part of the story.
okay, I have a question. All of the sharks that came looked like the same type of shark, right? and did they fit either description really? i think that they could have at least used just one of the species from the book.
i agree with ad 7/8-1 that the movie would be pretty boring if it was all Santiago like in the book, because i got bored too. but i think that they could have stuck to the story a little bit more instead of creating an entirely new storyline.
The book and movie are pretty similar. Both have pretty much the same base story, but the movie takes on a different perspective. The man and women on the island showed everyone what was going on while Santiago was gone. I think it also gave the producer something more to put in than just having the old man talk to himself the whole movie. The movie also has somewhat of a different message than the one the book gave. Santiago keeps fishing, in the movie, because he promised his wife. But in the book he fishes and catches the fish for pride, not due to a promise.
I think that the movie was better in some ways and worst in other ways than the book. The movie had a lot of things that the book did, but also added some new things and left stuff out. Like in the movie, Santiago has a daughter and there was a writer that thought that the old man was a very interesting person and thought that how the boy and the old man had a very close relationship was interesting too, that wasn't in the book. In the book there was no writer that came to visit Cuba, also in the book, it was only about Santiago and how he lived.
I think that the doctor change the time that the sharks attacked, because then the viewers wouldn't see the sharks and all the action, that would make the movie very bad. So over all, I think that the movie and the book were equally good.
I think that the special affects were really bad, but I guess it was pretty good for a 1990's movie. Was the man dreaming or thinking about when he was getting married to his wife?
The differences were that husband and wife I couldn't figure out at the end of the movie. Who were they anyway? The details about Santiago's marriage and his wife and when Santiago's daughther visits his shack. at the end of the book the young boy sees Santiago sleeping but instead in at the end of the movie the young boy sees Santiago sitting on his porch in a chair and his hand covered and they talk about DiMaggio and the Yankees
I feel the flim maker changed the movie around because he wanted it to have more action then the book itself.it helped it become more alive the n boring that's why i like the movie better then the book. Even though the book helped me vision it in my own imagination the movie helped me make my vision more clear. One thing I didn't like about the movie was the the husband and wife messed up everything and i didn't understand why they were even in the movie and why the flim maker wanted to twist the movie around.
I feel that Santiago feel in the water in the movies because he might of felt really weak andd tired or maybe he needed to cool down after being in the sea for so long.the flim maker also might have let Santiago come back during the day so that the husband and wife that was curious about the old man would know that he's back and safe.
Hemingway might have let Santiago come back during the evening because maybe Hemingway thought that the old man would feel better not getting all the attention from everyone & wanted to go home.
I don't think that the writer and his wife are supposed to be Hemingway. First of all, Hemingway did not go on vacation with his family to Cuba, he went alone to go fishing. Also, the writer seemed like the hero of a corny movie, not like the kind of rough, outdoorsman person that Hemingway was. I also think that Hemingway would be more interested in his wife. Even though the man was a writer, it doesn't mean he was Hemingway. But then again, the movie messed up the story, so why couldn't it mess up the way Hemingway was, too? I don't know, but I don't think that the man is Hemingway.
A.G. 7/8-3 --
i don't think that the movie was very close to the book at all, and the man was a worse actor than the boy.
A change I noticed in the movie was that Manolin told the story of the female marlin and not Sanitago.
Another difference I noticed in the movie was that there was no blood when Santiago killed the marlin which makes me wonder why the sharks came.
I liked the book better but I think the movie was kind of interesting with the tourists in it because it wasn't just Santiago the whole time talking to himself. you got to see from different points of view.
I liked the how in the end of the movie, everyone came and greeted Santiago sort of. I didn't like how he collapsed when he got out of the boat though.
I think it was kind of smart to put the two Americans in the movie because you can see a small reflection of Hemingway and his wife of the time in Cuba. I think this was something that made the movie more interesting because it would become really boring just watching Santiago try to catch the fish.
The movie wasn't as interesting to me as the book partly because there was no suspense in the movie. I had already read the book and the movie wasn't the same vibe as the book. In the book it seemed like Santiago was an upset man. In the movie he seemed too happy. And the book gave the vibe that Santiago was skinny but in the movie he was super fat. Where the daughter come from? She made the movie seem like the old man didn't just like to be around the boy. He now also had a daughter.
When I saw the movie, like C.N., I was dissappointed. The book had so much more life in it than the movie. It was interesting how they added in the daughter, but, I thought it really had no exciting parts except for when Santiago fights off the sharks.
In the movie, Santiago tells Manolin about the biggest fish that he ever caught, and I dont understand why the boy says "It's not right that I wasn't there." So, what is that supposed to mean? Is it because Manolin wanted to be fishing with Santiago when he caught it?
In the movie, the marlin is not the size of the boat (as it was in the book.) Santiago also has a daughter who is rude to the boy who cares a lot about Santiago. The marlin is not completely bones when Santiago gets back home. After this, Santiago goes to sleep in a chair, not laying down dreaming about the lions like he did in the book. I have no clue as to why they made these changes in the movie.
Why do you think the director didn't show Santiago eating the Tuna as a pain killer?
i agree with p.t from 7/8-3 who said that in the movie the old man never catches the dolphin and takes the flying fish out of it. Over all i liked the movie better even thought the book had more detail then the movie.
The movie also has somewhat of a different message than the one the book gave. Santiago keeps fishing, in the movie, because he promised his wife. But in the book he fishes and catches the fish for pride, not due to a promise.
what i also notice in movie that was different from the book was that Santiago wasnt dreaming of a lion in any of his dreams.
I think the movie was a really good movie for 1990's because the man showwed alot of determination and so did the fish
in the movie it seemed like the journalist was Earnest Hemingway.
I agree with D.R. cause the blood was either on the bottom or non-existent seeming as how there was only one bite out of the marlin until Santiago got back home where the whole fish was gone.
In the book, Santiago's daughter, Angela was never introduced. In the movie she was. Another thing i noticed was that the tourists were much more involved in the movie, than in the book.
In the book they did not talk about the boy alot. But in the movie the boy was a big part of it.
In the book there was no tourists in the movie there was.
D.R. 7-8-1,
Sharks have a very keen sense of smell, they can smell one drop of blood in the ocean from a few miles away. I'm willing to bet that the sharks must have smelled the few drops that came out of the marlin when Santiago stabbed it with the harpoon, that is if it were real life. However, the most likely reason is that the special effects department didn't add the "blood" to the stunt-marlin before using it on set. Hope that answers your question.
The Book I think was better than the movie because they go into more detail with Santiago's adventure. Rather than Having a little story parallel to it. I think it should have gone into more detail about it than putting some "filler" into it.
I liked though that in the movie, they tried to introduce more characters that seemed to make the movie better, but still as i said before it's "filler". and also some of the scenes were off chronologically I think.
d.r 7/8-1, I agree with your comment about Manolin telling the story, that is a odd thing that they put in the movie. In the book there is no evidence Manolin even knows about the incident with the female marlin.
in the book Santiago doesn't have a picture of his wife becuase it makes him feel lonely. in the movie there's a picture of this lady that you can assume to be his wife. why do you think they did that sense there is no lines she has and no one talks about her?
Another difference that I noticed is that during the movie, they didnt mention anything about why Santiango caared about fish in a strange way, as they did when in the book Hemmingway mentioned the male and female marlin. Instead, the movie directors had Manolin tell this story to the tourists.
m.a 7/8-2 said...
in the book Santiago doesn't have a picture of his wife becuase it makes him feel lonely. in the movie there's a picture of this lady that you can assume to be his wife. why do you think they did that sense there is no lines she has and no one talks about her?
well, i think that since they added the daughter, they felt like they had to have some sort of mother for her even if she's dead.
Santiago's house is also different. It was pretty beat down, but Santiago had alot of stuff and had steps up to his house, so it couldn't have had a dirt floor.
In the book they did not have one of the younger fishermen are arm wrestle the old man in the movie a young fishermen did.
From the book to the movie there was many, many differences like in the book there is no side story with s news reporter and his wife. Another differences i noticed was that in the movie there was a lot of sharks.
I agree with C.N. in 7/8-1 about Hemingway make Santiago's shack look smaller because in the movie the shack wasn't that small it was small but a good size for the old man. The way that Hemingway described the shack made seem that the shack was one little room with a little cot.
And who were "the guy and the girl" that were in the movie?
e.u. from 7/8-1 i think in the movie they dont mention santiago caring about the fish in a "strange" way bescause in the book we learn about santiago's relationship with fish in his thoughts(i think) and its kind of hard to convey peoples thoughts in movies.
In the book it takes Santiago four days just to catch the fish, in the movie it takes him somewhere around three days to catch and bring back the fish. Why did they shorten the time frame by so much?
what did the couple have to do with the story?
I think the book is better then the film. The film didn't have much of the stuff the book did only the important stuff. The film had good detail the book didn’t. One of the details that were in the film was that writer took notes of the fisher man and thought he was brave because of what he did.
y.l. 7/8-2- The boy was a worse actor by far! The first thing I noticed was that he was an awful actor. But it was similar to the book in that they used a lot of direct quotes. The corny parts with the man and wife weren't close to the book. I agree with you; it was like they just sort of wrote a completely unrelated story and stuffed the O.M.A.S. part in. The man wasn't that bad of an actor, he just kept changing his accent which made him seem worse. The boy was an awful actor. He wasn't convincing at all!
A key difference that popped up is the two tourists in the beginning of the movie. Maybe the play-writers decided to give the tourists in the end a bigger role? Maybe these two tourists are also the two, at the end of the book, that comment on the fish having a great tail and thinking it was a shark, symbolizing that the whole town knew of his exploits but the world did not.
The second key difference is that the shrimp was never found. The line did not become polluted with Gaff weed to way down the fish. And just to add on to that in t he movie he only fought the fish for TWO days. The third day he was rowing in but in the book he fought and captured the fish ON the third day.
Wow, the movie was very different from what the book was like. I personally like the movie a bit more because like Y.L. said in class that if it was the way it aws written in the book it would be all narration. It was a struggle for me to foolow the movie because it was different from the book. I think the the guy and the girl was Hemmingway and Pauline. If I were name all the differences from the book in the movie, it would take a long time. But, the main point is that I thought the movie was better then the book.
One big difference I noticed was the couple. Who are they, and why are they in the movie? Also in the movie it took santiago half the time to catch the fish. I think the book was fantastic.
how did the writer of the book show up to be on as the same time as the story took place?
ag 7/8-3
that was very true. the boy was a terrible actor. they did not use enough quotes though.
Thinking about the book, I now think that it was better because of how much the people had changed in the movie. I thin that maybe the director did that to make it more interesting. I feel like there were too many differences from the book and movie. As I keep thinking about it, it seems the book made more sense.
To Z.R from 7/8-1, they probably didn't put in Santiago eating the tuna for a pain killer, because, they didn't think they would have enough space for it. If they cut the american couple kissing, maybe they would.
To Y.L from 7/8-2, Santiago probably has a picture of his wife in his shack, because since his daughter repeatidly comes, he put it there to make her happy. Or, she made him.
A differance I saw was when the old man's hand cramps it dosent show him eatting the tuna.
I liked the book better than the movie. During the movie i found myself getting bored. While I was reading the book, i was interested the whole time always wondering if Santiago was going to catch the fish or not.
In the movie the old man came back to the shore and many people were there. In the book her came back at night and no one saw him.
I think the book and the movie are the same in some ways and diferent in another.The reasson i think so is beacuse in the moive they show he was a good arm wrestler in the book they tell you that people used to call him a champion because he beat the strongest man there.they are diferent in a way beacuse they show an author who comes to Cuba and writes about Santiago and Manolion.In the movie they show Santiago has a daughter who comes to visit him and trys to get him to move to the city with her.In the story they say he has a dirt floor but he has a wooden in the movie.
In the movie, some differences were that the man and woman on vacation there weren't in the book. Also, he never catched the dolphin fish in the movie unlike the book. Also, in the book, they never mentioned Santiago's daughter, but in the movie she appeared a lot in the scenes. I think it was a good idea to put the daughter in the movie because it showed that she was worried about the old man.
I kind of liked how the tourists had an important part in the movie because it was kind of a suspenceful trying to find out who they were. I think they were a good addition to the movie because it would be boring watching Santiago talk to himself the whole time. yet, I still like the book much better.
Post a Comment