Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities between film and LITERATURE
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Similarities between film and LITERATURE
In the comparison between The Island of Lost Souls and “The Island of Dr. Moreau, there is a clear use of close adaptation. Desmond and Hawkes say, “A film is a close adaptation when most of the narrative elements in the literary text are kept in the film” (Desmond and Hawkes 44). There is a clear use of close adaptation in the scene where Edward Pendick meets someone on the island. The people that Edward meets when he is on the island are all bestial. In the novel, Edward meets a lady named M’Ling and in the film he meets a servant named Lota. This scene is the same, but different names are being used. In the film, The Island of Lost Souls, Edward and his crew arrive on an island and are greeted by Captain Davies. Captain Davies is captain …show more content…
The big issue with this is that neither movie goers or people that read the books are not satisfied. They are not satisfied because their favorite scene from the book doesn’t happen in the movie or vice versa. They always want the movie and the novel to be alike. An example of a movie and a novel being a like would be Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. This movie is a “close adaptation partly because J.K. Rowling, the best-selling author of the Harry Potter series, knew that she had a loyal readership, and so in selling the film rights, she stipulated that the film stay close to the Potter text, even insisting on her approval of the director and the actors” (Desmond and Hawkes 44). J.K. Rowling continued to release the rights the of her books to be made into a movie because her readers were so happy with it. In order for the audience to like the movie as much as the book, you have to make sure it is close to the book. Desmond and Hawke say, “In talking about adaptations, it seems natural enough to talk about the author of the text and the director of the film as equivalent” (Desmond and Hawkes 44). The author of a book and the director of the film are the same because they both create
When placed on a deserted island, a group of strangers banded together to try to survive. They decided on a leader, problem-solved, fought off a beast, and formed their own society, even if it was somewhat flawed. This was the situation in the famous TV show, Lost. The Lord of the Flies and Lost are similar in these many different ways, with the exception that the show featured a tribe of adults instead of children. That just proves how difficult it is to maintain order in a society; even the adults struggled with keeping it peaceful and civilized. In Lord of the Flies, William Golding presents a broken society of savage boys fighting one another to suggest that man’s capacity for evil is brought out by the need for power and control.
The Glass Castle is a memoir written by Jeannette Walls was released in 2005. The movie was released December 7th, 2017, and was based upon that memoir. The screenplay writers were Destin Daniel Cretton, Marti Noxon, and Andrew Lanham. Unlike many others, I was impressed with the movie as a whole. The movie does not exactly line up with the memoir, but the movie gives sufficient visuals for what Jeannette and her siblings endured. The characters lived up to their roles for the most part which gives support to the movie. There are a few scenes missing in the movie version, but the scenes that are included do justice for portraying Jeannette’s experiences to her readers.
Now for the counterargument. Some people say that they enjoyed watching the movie after reading the book. They may say that they think the movie does follow the book, and that the characters and events are the same in both versions. However, they are wrong because there is plenty of evidence that says otherwise. The different scenes of the book and movie, and also the characters that are completely different and don’t follow the same path in the two different
It’s pretty clear that film and literature are very different mediums and when you try to make one into the other, such as an adaptation, you’re going to have some things that are lost in translation and seen in a different light. When an original work is made into a movie, I think they’re kind of at a disadvantage because they only have a few hours to get the whole story across while also keeping the viewer intrigued by what is taking place on the screen right in front of their eyes. Movies are able to contain special effects, visuals, and music though which can impact a viewer and make a scene stay in their mind longer which is a plus side to being able to view something. Literature on the other hand, has a greater advantage. They can keep the reader entertained for a considerably long time and you’re able to get more information about people and events such as what a character is thinking or what is happening behind the scenes during a specific event. I understand that people are going to have different opinions when it comes to whether a book or film adaptation of a work is the best and it is not always going to be the same for each and every piece of work. One thing I think though, is that The Namesake in both the film and the movie, they’re both accurate and concise in the way that they relate to one another.
The books, A Wrinkle in Time and And Then There Were None, both have many differences in the movie versions. The directors of both movies change the plot to make the movie see fit to what they may have imaged the book to be, while still keeping the story line the same.
Horrifying, heartbreaking, uplifting, and inspiring; it is hard to believe these four adjectives can all be used to describe Sapphire’s novel, Push and the 2009 movie based on it, Precious. Portraying, albeit differently, the harsh life of Claireece “everybody call me Precious” (6) Jones, both mediums deliver powerful messages of revulsion, sympathy, and hope in their representations of the realities the young African-American girl faced and struggled to overcome. Although, the overall story remains consistent in the transition from novel to film there are also notable differences, some large and others seemingly more trivial, which affect the observer’s emotional reactions. Changes in portrayal method, overall concept, and minor admissions work together, making the movie, although poignant, somewhat less effective.
The book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone differs from the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in many ways. Most of these differences include characters and scenes. The two ways to discover this Harry Potter adventure are to either read the book or watch the movie. In fact, a person would want to read the book if they wanted the entire perception of the story and all of the information inside; whereas, a person would want to watch the movie if they wanted a rough sketch of the story. The two have dissimilarities but the person choosing to read the book or watch the movie is in charge of what they want to have. That is, the entire story or just a rough sketch of the story.
Furthermore, fans of original novels often think they want a literal film adaptation of the piece, until they actually get one. Take me for instance, I am a huge fan of the Harry Potter franchise and always was always pleased with the way they portray the series on screen. I would argue that all the films within the series follow a faithful adaptation by always including the main events and leaving out the tedious details, resulting in a worthwhile film. There is one exception to this; David Yates’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One. I believe this film, unlike all the others, followed an extreme literal adaptation. The movie dragged on and on and it really just seemed like a two-hour long trailer for Part Two. At the same time, it was a good movie, but I feel like it would have been better, had they added some extra action-packed events. On the contrary, Yates did do what the fans of the franchise had been requesting for almost ten years; he followed J.K. Rowling’s novel to a perfect tee, by literally making you feel like you were watching these characters backpack through the woods for nine months as they did the novel.
However, unfortunately, it does not guarantee the audience and the production group that the film must be a nice one to watch. But is this the end of the world? No. It is not difficult to find that there are always a large group of people like to watch the film version after they read the novel, or vice versa. In other words, they could be a pair of nice partner to sell the story itself. To the author, it is undoubtedly a good thing. However, to the audience may not be the ones who are benefited. People should still consider to have a look on the reviews before they start to read or watch the story- with there are more people just treating the film market and the book market as some profit-making industries, more and more unsatisfying works occur. Being a smart audience and reader, people should always select carefully for the ones that satisfy their own favors and with
Every other movie today seems to be taken from a novel. This is not necessarily terrible, but there are a few guidelines when it comes to converting a novel into film. The utmost critical aspect is preserving the theme. Theme is the large and small ideas which aid in explaining the actions and events in a work of literature or film. This can be accomplished through the handling of characters and their relationships with others or their own morals and values. It is perfectly acceptable to alter the plot of a novel, but it cannot violate the theme or tone. Ultimately, the theme and tone are what the reader or viewer takes away from the work. Movies are not just watched for their entertainment, but also to relate to and learn from. Of course, not all film adaptations are done properly. Arguably, one of the “so-called” greatest Stephen King horror films is The Shining starring Jack Nicholson. Stanley Kubrick 's film, although full of iconic scenes and quotes, is not
It seems like every year Hollywood does a motion picture interpretation of a novel and although the movie may become a box office hit, the novel will always be much more detailed and in depth. Movie producers and directors try to fit an entire book filled with the tiniest of details into approximately an hour and thirty minutes of entertainment, therefore are forced to cut out many important details. For instance, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” a children’s literature novel written by J.K. Rowling was transferred to the big screen in 2001. Though the movie stayed “…surprisingly faithful to the novel,” according to Roger Ebert, it still lacked some major details that contributed to building the magical world of “Harry Potter.”
In the Hobbit an Unexpected Journey, Bilbo Baggins is “… considered … very respectable…because [he] never had any adventures or did anything unexpected” (Tolkien 2). Bilbo was respectable until he went on an adventure with Gandalf the Grey and Dwarfs to reclaim the Lonely Mountain, the dwarves’ homeland. The book was also portrayed a series of movies. The movies and the book have many differences. One of the major differences is the addition of the orcs into the movie to add the physical action, monomyth elements that were missing in the book, and to further develop the movie characters.
‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ is a common enough saying or is it the other way around .is it the textual words that are worth a thousand .today, film adaptations are a modernized version of ‘pictures’ whereas ‘words’ are the good old strudy books. The tussle between the two genres is long and hard.Adaptation is not a new phenomenon .From Sophocles to Shakespeare, writers have based their plays on myths and legends already been told. Hence, it is an age old trend that never goes out of fashion. It has however advanced profoundly such that it has leapt from the page of a book and onto the cinema screen. John Harrington in his book “Film And/is art” Estimates that a third of all movies made are actually all film adaptations. But turning a novel into a screen play is not a matter of pulling dialogues from the pages of a book1.”the Lord of the rings, TheHarry Potter series,The Spiderman series,Twilight,the godfather,the pianist, the illusionist, Fightclub, The hours have all got one similarity and that is that all of them are adaptations from books.the questions that arise from our discourse is that what is a film adaptation?does the relationship between a novel and a film adaptation really matter? Or can the film adaptation stand on its own .What are the features required in a novel to make it adaptable to film media? Or the rather daunting fedility debate ;Are film adaptations better than books?
According to the article, “ Are Books Better than Films?”, “Films can bring whole worlds to life before our eyes, make characters into living, breathing fleshing blood, but books let you live everything” (“Are Books Better than Films?”). Very often book lovers are unsatisfied with the movie adaption of their favorite book. No doubt there have been great book based movies but that does not take the place of reading the actual novel. Reading books is better than watching the movie. This is better because often the movie tends to misinterpret information, which changes the plot, and lack sufficient character development.
Nevertheless, there are also some critical but still influential notions as one of George Bluestone. In 1957 he wrote a prominent book Novels into Film in which he writes that “[t]he film and the novel remain separate institutions...As long as the cinema remains as omnivorous as it is for story material, its dependence on literature will continue” (qtd. in DiPaolo 2007: 12). It changes a view of adaptation and so adaptations and original novels are not the same, and films depend on literature