There are some flaws in the movie directed by Harry Hook that was based on the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding. The conch, a symbolic item in the book, lacked an importance, the boys were lead by an adult, and tension between Jack and Ralph--some of the main characters-- seemed unclear.
To start off, the text specifically showed the significance of the conch. It stood for order and civility to the boys. And when it broke, it not only meant the loss of an item, but the collapse of law and order among them. However, in the movie, its meaning was not as powerful; the importance of its meaning was completely lost. Plus, it did not even break.
Additionally, the boys were not lead by an adult in the book. When the plane crashed, no adult survived. They actually were enjoying their freedom from the grown-ups and their rules. And they were lead by a kid named Ralph. But the boys were lead by the pilot in the movie--a grown-up. With a grown-up, we would not be able to see the naivate of the boys as they would be following his leadership for survival.
Furthermore, the Lord of the Flies made it clear of the tension between Jack and Ralph, the lead rivals in the novel. This tension between them would then give a foreshadow in the text that the group will spilt up; the novel had a reason. Nonetheless, the film only had shown an argument between Jack and Ralph that made the group split. In the whole film, their hostility against each other was not very present, hence, confusing the person who was watching and wondering," Why are they fighting all of a sudden?"
To conclude, the Lord of the Flies is an exemplary piece of fiction that did not deserve to have such an inaccurate movie. It had perfect detail, impressive characters, and had a mastery of allegories. But the movie does not match this ranking. So's to say, not all movies are as good as the book.
