The wonderful world of media never ceases to amaze me with its constant advances in technology and infallible tendency to ruin all that is good in the world of the written word. Every day we are confronted with advertisements for movies. Some of these happen to be based on what, in my opinion, is our greatest achievement as a species: the written word. When modern directors endeavor to transform the book into easily digestible entertainment for the masses, the story is often butchered. The plot gets rewritten and mangled into what is often an unrecognizable, unintelligent string of pointless action. In the process of turning literary genius into multimedia for the masses, details are altered, characters are abandoned, and even the resolution is scrapped in attempt to create the next blockbuster. The movie is seldom, if ever, truly based on the book. The most striking example of a director abusing creative license and altering a books details is the movie remake of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, The novel’s plot revolves around Hester Prynn, a resident in a puritan society in the New England Colonies, Whom bears the child Pearl after her husband is presumed to be lost at sea. Since he is presumed dead, there is no conceivable way he could be the father. Hence, the society demands she name the child’s father, so he can be properly punished along side his adulterous counterpart. But since the Reverend Dimmesdale is, after all, the town preacher, his reputation is rather important to him, and Hester realizes this. Despite the promise of having her punishment lifted in exchange for the name of her counterpart, she refuses, and allows him to live out his life in peace. But unknown to her, Reverend Dimmesdale is consumed... ... middle of paper ... ...e most movies hold to the basic structure of the book, similarities often end there. The symbolism and metaphors intended by the author are lost in translation, and the director’s creative intellect typically blurs the focus of the novel. In bridging the gap between text and movie, the details that seem unimportant to the writer of the screen play may be changed or even wholly abandoned, the characters that we know and love from the novels are erased, and sometimes even the ending of the movie inconsistent with the book we read. The novels we love become something alien, something unrecognizable on the big screen. Hollywood has always been famous for it’s silver screen monsters, But until one lends to it the appropriate amount of thought, it escapes our minds that the true monstrosity is what happens when translating literature into a box office hit.
The film and writing industry go hand in hand, as they often inspire one another. As a result, the translation of many novels into movie format and vice versa vary in success. For instance, many people prefer the film format over the novel since it is usually less time consuming and requires less active participation. However, films tend to overlook significant details which assist the viewer's understanding of the story. Therefore, the two separate forms of media have too many differences to portray the same work of fiction accurately, as they both have their pros and cons that appeal to different types of stories and plots. Numerous changes in the movie adaptation of the novel, A Separate Peace by John Knowles, affected the viewer’s interpretation
Have you ever watched a movie and been dissatisfied, because it was not similar to its book? There are multiple movies that seem as if they are their own story, for they don't resemble their book at all. For example, “The Pit and the Pendulum.” by Edgar Allen Poe. He, himself would not approve of the film that follows his story. For one thing, the storyline was no where near to being like his book. Another reasoning is that he wrote based of one man not multiple people. And finally, he wouldn’t of approved of the art on the walls in the room with the pit and pendulum. These are the reasonings of why Poe would not appreciate the film.
Have you ever read a book and then watched the movie and saw many differences? Well you can also find lots of similarities. In the book “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the movie “Tom and Huck” there are many similarities and differences having to do with the characters personalities, the setting, the characters relationships with one another and the events that take place.
Philip K. Dick is one of the more prolific science fiction writers of the second half of the 20th century. His dark plots, themes, and characterizations differ greatly from those who preceded him. This has seemingly translated well onto the big screen, as at last count, nearly ten of his novels and short stories have been adapted into films. Several of these films have garnered critical acclaim for both their movie credentials and use of source material. Blade Runner, originally released in 1982 and based off a 1968 novel entitled Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? along with A Scanner Darkly, a 2006 film based off a book of the same name released in 1977, are two such examples. They provide an excellent base to compare the adaptations in terms of visual style, plot authenticity, and characterization. Both movies took alternate routes, yet both were very well received, though one’s financial success is far greater than the other.
When novels are adapted for the cinema, directors and writers frequently make changes in the plot, setting, characterization and themes of the novel. Sometimes the changes are made in adaptations due to the distinctive interpretations of the novel, which involve personal views of the book and choices of elements to retain, reproduce, change or leave out. On the contrary, a film is not just an illustrated version of the novel; it is a totally different medium. When adapting the novel, the director has to leave out a number of things for the simple reason of time difference. Furthermore, other structures and techniques must be added to the film to enhance the beauty and impressions of it. Like a translator, the director wants to do some sort of fidelity to the original work and also create a new work of art in a different medium. Regardless of the differences in the two media, they also share a number of elements: they each tell stories about characters.
Films of this era are criticized for substituting violence and special effects for "substance". Many believe that creating a movie script is a juvenile form of writing, a shrub to the oak of a novel. Upon reading both the novel The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne and viewing the film produced by Roland Joffe, one notices the tremendous effort put into both. This essay will explore the many differences and similarities between the book and movie.
Whenever books are adapted for film, changes inevitably have to be made. The medium of film offers several advantages and disadvantages over the book: it is not as adept at exploring the inner workings of people - it cannot explore their minds so easily; however, the added visual and audio capabilities of film open whole new areas of the imagination which, in the hands of a competent writer-director, can more than compensate.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
The only real way to truly understand a story is to understand all aspects of a story and their meanings. The same goes for movies, as they are all just stories being acted out. In Thomas Foster's book, “How to Read Literature Like a Professor”, Foster explains in detail the numerous ingredients of a story. He discusses almost everything that can be found in any given piece of literature. The devices discussed in Foster's book can be found in most movies as well, including in Quentin Tarantino’s cult classic, “Pulp Fiction”. This movie is a complicated tale that follows numerous characters involved in intertwining stories. Tarantino utilizes many devices to make “Pulp Fiction” into an excellent film. In this essay, I will demonstrate how several literary devices described in Foster's book are put to use in Tarantino’s film, “Pulp Fiction”, including quests, archetypes, food, and violence.
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
From a structural perspective, movies and novels appear as polar opposites. A film uses actors, scripts, and a set in order to create a visual that can grab and keep the attention of their viewers. However, an author strives to incorporate deeper meaning into their books. Despite these differences in media, 1984 and The Hunger Games present unique, yet similar ideas.
Many time in our lives, we have seen the transformation of novels into movies. Some of them are equal to the novel, few are superior, and most are inferior. Why is this? Why is it that a story that was surely to be one of the best written stories ever, could turn out to be Hollywood flops? One reason is that in many transformations, the main characters are changed, some the way they look, others the way they act. On top of this, scenes are cut out and plot is even changed. In this essay, I will discuss some of the changes made to the characters of the Maltese Falcon as they make their transformation to the ?big screen.?
As stated numerous times throughout this essay, movies must stay true to their book predecessor for full effect. Books are normally beautifully described and written, and help the reader visualize a completely new world. Most movies, not just The Book Thief, normally omit several
Adaptation of any kind has been a debate for many years. The debate on cinematic adaptations of literary works was for many years dominated by the questions of fidelity to the source and by the tendencies to prioritize the literary originals over their film versions (Whelehan, 2006). In the transference of a story from one form to another, there is the basic question of adherence to the source, of what can be lost (Stibetiu, 2001). There is also the question of what the filmmakers are being faithful to or is it the novel’s plot in every detail or the spirit of the original (Smith, 2016). These are only few query on the issue of fidelity in the film adaptation.
"Books and movies are like apple and oranges. They both are fruit, but taste completely different.” said Stephen King (goodreads.com). It is indeed true, books and movies have several common things and yet have differences. They both give us the same story, but are viewed completely different. Reading books and watching movies are similar as they both tell a story and give details and information about the story. Reading books or watching movies gives the reader and the viewer the same feeling and emotions about the story. People can feel gloomy or pleased with the story after reading a book or watching a movie. Both books and movies have the same general concepts, which are the themes and main characters of