What is your initial reaction to the movie version of this play? Think about the picture you had in your head about what the characters looked like and if their actions and reactions were what you expected and were also genuine.
For some reason, when I read the book, I imagined all of the men to be in their late twenty's to early forty's but in the movie there were some men who looked to be in their sixties. Personally, I think the book is a little more interesting because I think reading about a character's actions is more captivating than seeing a character's actions in a movie. But, overall I think the movie did a good job in capturing the character's personalities and I heard a lot of the same lines from the play being used in the movie which I liked.
I agree with taylor. The characters looked so much different than I imagined them! Also, it was really boring to watch, especially all the banter at the beginning. Reading books like 12 Angry Men are always so much better than watching them because you can go at your own pace, not at somebody else's
I personally thought that the book was much better because I got to make up what I believed each character would look like, (within the context of the book.) However, the vision of this play I had in my head was fairly similar to the movie, with the exception of a few characters that I originally thought would be younger.
I think that the book is a lot better than the movie. I found the movie to be really boring and felt like I could fall asleep. The book, however, was suspenseful and very interesting. I read the book in a night! I did not picture the characters to look like how they did in the movie. I pictured them to be more modern looking (even though the book was written in the 1950s.) I pictured the men to be more older and bigger. I did not picture the old man to be skinny.
I personally never like watching movies after reading the book- it always replaces the image in my head and takes away the fun, imaginative element of it. The movie, 12 Angry Men presents the characters and setting in ways I did not expect, like their ages, and the fact that they were smoking so gosh darn much. But I was able to remember a lot of the lines from the book, which made me more familiar with it. And the fact that the movie is slow, and in black and white made it less exciting than I think it could be.
I liked watching the movie, because it was nice to see what someone else's interpretation of the story is compared to mine. there were certain things that I thought might be different like the size of the room or the fact that most of the characters looked like they were 50-75 years old. I still liked the book better, because as dan said its better when I can make up what everything looks like. It still is hard for me to take an opinion because in a play its hard to show detail that the movie did show.
NOM I personally liked seeing the movie in comparison with the play. I mean I personaly had a different thought, about the characters, how they looked, how they sounded, what kind of room they were in. Even that I had a picture in my mind, a preference as to where everything was, it was still interesting, to see someone's layout as to what the seen looked like to them. I think I will have to go with the play in book form.
I did like seeing the movie rendition of the book because when reading the book there were many factors that the book didn't explain, while in the movie they did. Mid way through the book I kept en visualizing what each juror looked like, what they were wearing, their voice, and even the setting they were sitting in was a little obscur to me. Where as in the movie right of the bat I got a visual of all the jurors, the setting and other details about them. I personally think that having those details immediately presented to you help you paint a better picture in your head, and having this picture in your head helps you follow the story.
For some reason, when I read the book, I imagined all of the men to be in their late twenty's to early forty's but in the movie there were some men who looked to be in their sixties. Personally, I think the book is a little more interesting because I think reading about a character's actions is more captivating than seeing a character's actions in a movie. But, overall I think the movie did a good job in capturing the character's personalities and I heard a lot of the same lines from the play being used in the movie which I liked.
ReplyDeleteI agree with taylor. The characters looked so much different than I imagined them! Also, it was really boring to watch, especially all the banter at the beginning. Reading books like 12 Angry Men are always so much better than watching them because you can go at your own pace, not at somebody else's
ReplyDelete-Dan
ReplyDeleteI personally thought that the book was much better because I got to make up what I believed each character would look like, (within the context of the book.) However, the vision of this play I had in my head was fairly similar to the movie, with the exception of a few characters that I originally thought would be younger.
I think that the book is a lot better than the movie. I found the movie to be really boring and felt like I could fall asleep. The book, however, was suspenseful and very interesting. I read the book in a night! I did not picture the characters to look like how they did in the movie. I pictured them to be more modern looking (even though the book was written in the 1950s.) I pictured the men to be more older and bigger. I did not picture the old man to be skinny.
ReplyDeleteI personally never like watching movies after reading the book- it always replaces the image in my head and takes away the fun, imaginative element of it. The movie, 12 Angry Men presents the characters and setting in ways I did not expect, like their ages, and the fact that they were smoking so gosh darn much. But I was able to remember a lot of the lines from the book, which made me more familiar with it. And the fact that the movie is slow, and in black and white made it less exciting than I think it could be.
ReplyDeleteMatt-
ReplyDeleteI liked watching the movie, because it was nice to see what someone else's interpretation of the story is compared to mine. there were certain things that I thought might be different like the size of the room or the fact that most of the characters looked like they were 50-75 years old. I still liked the book better, because as dan said its better when I can make up what everything looks like. It still is hard for me to take an opinion because in a play its hard to show detail that the movie did show.
NOM
ReplyDeleteI personally liked seeing the movie in comparison with the play. I mean I personaly had a different thought, about the characters, how they looked, how they sounded, what kind of room they were in. Even that I had a picture in my mind, a preference as to where everything was, it was still interesting, to see someone's layout as to what the seen looked like to them. I think I will have to go with the play in book form.
I did like seeing the movie rendition of the book because when reading the book there were many factors that the book didn't explain, while in the movie they did. Mid way through the book I kept en visualizing what each juror looked like, what they were wearing, their voice, and even the setting they were sitting in was a little obscur to me. Where as in the movie right of the bat I got a visual of all the jurors, the setting and other details about them. I personally think that having those details immediately presented to you help you paint a better picture in your head, and having this picture in your head helps you follow the story.
ReplyDelete