Who is the Lord of the Lord of the Flies?
Lord of the Flies by William Golding and the 1990 movie by Harry Hook has many different factors that changed the meaning of the book. These Factors include: The boy's change in nationality, the fact that the pilot survived the crash, and that even before the crash the boys knew and recognized eachother.
First, in the book the boys were British and because of this they were more proper and disciplined and slowly became savage, which was Golding's message all along. Golding wanted to show the irony in that the British would become unproper-killing-savages in his book and he showed it very clearly. Also, in the book, Ralph becomes chief because the conch gives him more power making the other boys see him as having a kingly role, so he was voted as chief. In the movie, however, the boys were American. Because of this they were already begining to become savage the second they arrived on the island. Golding's message was not delivered as Ralph became chief only because he was the colonel in the boy's military school. I think this factor took away Golding's message and also what the conch symbolized.
Additionally, in Hook's 1990 version of Lord of the Flies the pilot was on the island with the boys. The pilot was ill and the boys were force to care for him, until he ran away and became, what the boys thought, a beast. In the book though, they had no adults on the island at all. I think this gave some of them, like Jack, a sense of freedom and a feeling of no longer being controlled which later caused them to become savage. They did not have to care for anyone but themsleves as well. The beast was just a figment of their imagination that showed that, like many children, these boys get afraid when there is no one to protect them. I feel that Golding's version added more detail about how children really act and also he's version brings a more appealing story to the reader.
Furthermore, in the book the boys did not know eachother, exept for the choir. I think this gave the choir a more darker, eviler role to explain their characters better. It gave the other boys a disadvantage and something to fear from the choir. The fact that they did not know eachother made them all unaware of who the other boys really were and how they act. For example, no one knew who Ralph was, and how well of a leader he could be, but either way they voted him because of his presence of a leader. In the movie, on the other hand, all the boys were from the same school and all knew eachother well. This gave them a chance to get to know everybody well enough and to already know who would be in charge in case of emergency. Since Ralph was the colonel, he would be in charge and no one would disagree, except Jack who was the oldest.
In many cases where books are converted into movies, the majority of people prefer the book better then the movie. For the Lord of the Flies I think it's the exact same concept. The book excelled, it had pages full with meaning and every line was entertaining and full of imagery, while the movie failed to show the true meaning that Golding was trying to represent. If you read the book, you will get a better understanding of the characters and their actions, and you will be able to see what Golding was trying to portray by writing the novel. I think I speak for many when I say Lord of the Flies is an amazing book and Hollywood has made it into another unappealing movie.
