Originally posted October 14th, 2015-
Having not read the book myself, I turned to the internet and its plethora of critics and reviews to find out how close the movie adaption of The Scorch Trials was to the original book.
+20th Century Fox says that the movie is "is action-packed, but doesn’t stay close to the plot of the novel."
According to Los Angeles Times HS Insider, the movie strays from the book from the very beginning, completely changing the main plot. Originally, after escaping from the maze at the end of the first book WCKD puts Thomas and the Gladers in the Scorch, on purpose, as another test to see if they can withstand the harsh conditions. It was another way for WCKD to try to find a cure. But the movie has them "rescued" and taken to WCKD headquarters, that they don't know at first, where they are harvesting kids' brains to try to find a cure, so Thomas and the Gladers escape from the head quarters and go into Scorch. They aren't trying to survive the Scorch like the book intended, but rather running away from WCKD.
The Cranks are people that have been infected by "the Flare", the deadly virus that Thomas and the Gladers are somehow immune to. They play a much bigger role in the movie than in the book and are portrayed differently as well. In the movie, the Cranks are portrayed as zombies, which wasn't the original intent of the book, making The Scorch Trials seeming to be a post-apocalyptic zombie movie. This difference was particularly disappointing for some fans, as Aliskinner writes on Fandango, "They're not zombies, it doesn't really spread through biting, it's all in the brain. We don't need another zombie movie."
I read the books and I just saw the movie two weekends ago. Personally, I feel like Scorch Trials doesn't really follow the book at all. Although, they were both really good. I enjoyed the book better
ReplyDelete1) I wrote a post about this topic because I saw the first movie and shortly after starting my blog I thought it would be interesting to do a compare and contrast on the second book and the movie; which it was.
ReplyDelete2) I did not have any difficulty with this post. After seeing the movie there were plenty of reviews online comparing the book and movie that I could pull information and quotes from.
3) I wanted my audience to not necessarily do something, but to learn that, sadly, it's nearly impossible to make an exact copy of a book in movie form. But, that does not necessarily mean that it won't be good.
This comparison between the two pieces here is really well done, especially for someone who had not read the book. Relying on other sources for your information can be difficult, but because you looked at a variety of sources to inform you of people's opinions about the differences, it works well. The way you explain your purpose here is also well done - as providing this important information to the audience of the movie and the reader of the book is critical. It is one of those things that book lovers and movies goers alike must understand in order to enjoy both genres.
ReplyDelete