The Lord of the Flies has become a classic ever scince it was written. Now with two movies both by the same name (1963 and a 1990 version), it seemed apparant that both movies would follow William Golding's road as a master piece in Media. I will be will be explaining the differences between the two movies, in such things as Character, Setting and Theme of good vs. evil. With both the 1963 and 1990 version of the novel, character variation between the two is important. Simon, being an important character, differs heavily from movies to movie. In the 1990 version, Simon countinually has dreams unlike, the 1963 version of him, never really slept. With his dreams also came a sort of connection with the piolet, unlike the 1963 version just saw him and went ot tell everyone. The biggest mistake both movies was that they never let you hear of their conversation between Simon and the Lord of the Flies. This creates a sort of opawue atmosphere for those who haven't read the book. Eventually, both Simons die, but the way they die differs. They were both killed by being stabbed by spears, but in the 1990 version, the music made it seem more like a jungle type of music and is somewhat similar to the way it is described in the novel. All in all, the Simon in the 1990 version actually interperts Golding's idea of Simon better than the 1963 version. This is because the way the movie tells everything, it makes it apparant of things such as Simon's relationship with the piolet, his death being portrayed the way the novel interperts it and the one fact that Simon's body actually looked like it was stabbed to death unlike the 1963 version which just showed his body, untouched, in the water floating. The physical setting of Lord of the Flies is very simple. A huge island with children here and there. Now the way both movies present this physical envoirnment is very well done. In the 1990 version, it makes the places so that it help people to get a better idea of how things were described by Golding, such as Piggy instead of being on cliff, was on the beach so that you could see his face after he died. The 1963 version, however, follows the novel more accuratly in setting such as piggy on the mountain side when he dies and falling off a cliff. One major mistake both movies made was that they never showed the Lord of the Flies talking to Simon. This doesn't create the feel of danger that the novel presents. This destroys the whole meaning of the name "The Lord of the Flies." One difference that both movies had was the one seemed to take place during World War 2 while the other seemed to take place during the Vietnam or Cold war. The theme of good versus evil is not heavily presented here as it is in the novel. The one big reason is yet again because of the Lord of the Flies "mute" conversation with Simon. As said before this still doesn't create the sense of evil that usually take place and it doesn't give Simon that Christ sort of comparison clearly made in the novel. So, with Simon not being "tempted" by the Lord of the Flies, you can never get a good understanding the true conflict between good and evil. Now both movies did have the basics of the theme that is civilization versus savagry. This also creates a feeling that Roger is put in place of the person that is a "Satan" type of character rather than the Lord of the Flies. Both movies however have the basic theme, Civilization versus Savagry. Jack's group against Ralph's detiriating group. They both have Simon and Piggy dying Ok people I'm not done yet.