The Reckoning: the Good Continued

In the book, they just come to a hill and see the town below them, but in the film, they are headed for Durham, when they find the bridge is out. Thus they have to find another road to Durham. Which road leads to the town. Thus their arrival, in the film, is more due to fate, than it is in the book.

In the film, the dead boy's parents, especially his father, gets to express more remorse for the boy's death, than they do in the book. Thus they come off better in the film, than they do in the book.

If some of the characters in the book are omitted from the film, or have their parts shortened, than some of them have their parts expanded, for the better. The jailor in the film is not the jailor in the book. And because of the way the play is presented in the film, and because of the flashbacks in the film, the dead boy takes on a more prominent role in the film, than he does in the book.

Maybe because a play is suppose to be seen and not read, the play works better in the film, than it does in the book.

Empathy for the dead child(ren) is clearly and individually expressed, in the book, only by Nicholas and the King's Justice, and then only toward the end of the book. While in the film, this empathy is expressed earlier and by more people. For example, Martin, by tone of voice, expresses his empathy, as soon as he sees the boy's grave.