Reply to Topic
I'm not sure how many discussions have taken place on here, comparing story to movie, but I just read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption out of Different Seasons, by Stephen King, along with watching The Shawshank Redemption, right after, and wanted to get some thoughts of others who may have done this (not back-to-back, of course).
Story
Without going into the minor details of the story, we all know (or at least should know) of Andy Dufresne and Red, and how Andy eventually escapes from the confines of Shawshank.
If you were to tell me (before reading the story) that it was written by Stephen King, I would have thought it were about a prison of spirits, or some Indian burial ground under the prison. Not what I would expect from Stephen King, at all.
You're drawn to the characters, either it's Red's descriptiveness of their surroundings, or the overwhelming message that hope can overcome anything.
I think it's safe to say, that I liked the story right away.
Film
Frank Darabont wrote the screenplay for The Shawshank Redemption, and he did a tremendous job of translating the story to the screen. Reading the story, I was just in awe of how true to the story he had actually remained.
Of course, liberties were taken with characters, but it's understandable that this was needed in order to keep the film on a steady pace.
Certain aspects, I believe, should have been left out of the movie so that other elements could have been shown. However, Darabont managed to, in a way, tip the hat to those aspects by referencing them as things that had already happened (ie., Tommy Williams serving time at Cashman). There weren't too many of these, mind you, because the film was almost a literal translation of the story.
Overall, I like both equally, simply because the story has things the film doesn't, and vice-versa.
What are your thoughts?
Story
Without going into the minor details of the story, we all know (or at least should know) of Andy Dufresne and Red, and how Andy eventually escapes from the confines of Shawshank.
If you were to tell me (before reading the story) that it was written by Stephen King, I would have thought it were about a prison of spirits, or some Indian burial ground under the prison. Not what I would expect from Stephen King, at all.
You're drawn to the characters, either it's Red's descriptiveness of their surroundings, or the overwhelming message that hope can overcome anything.
I think it's safe to say, that I liked the story right away.
Film
Frank Darabont wrote the screenplay for The Shawshank Redemption, and he did a tremendous job of translating the story to the screen. Reading the story, I was just in awe of how true to the story he had actually remained.
Of course, liberties were taken with characters, but it's understandable that this was needed in order to keep the film on a steady pace.
Certain aspects, I believe, should have been left out of the movie so that other elements could have been shown. However, Darabont managed to, in a way, tip the hat to those aspects by referencing them as things that had already happened (ie., Tommy Williams serving time at Cashman). There weren't too many of these, mind you, because the film was almost a literal translation of the story.
Overall, I like both equally, simply because the story has things the film doesn't, and vice-versa.
What are your thoughts?
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg
