Have you ever read an amazing book only to be stuck with an awful movie based off of it? Watching a movie based off of a book is amazing, that is, if you haven't read the book. Reading the book that the movie is based off of is much better than the movie itself, imagining the words into action from a book gives one much more of a thrill than in the movie. The movie itself, is quite a disappointment.
The book Divergent for example, spoiler alert, the book was absolutely amazing in all ways for those who like the kind of book that gives you thrills and has a disgustingly amazing plot twist, all set in a post-apocalyptic setting. If I were that much of a reader, I would have read it a fourth time. The movie for divergent recently came out, about two weeks ago, it was not all that bad, considering that they might, just might, have had a time limit allotted for the movie. However, it left out a very large key-factor that may mess up the movies to come for the series. One of the main characters had left there factions due to a serious injury, that was not shown in the movie. There is no way for the character to prosper in the movies as it did in the books after Divergent. Throughout the book he plays as a part of the faction less, as implied, do not belong to a faction. This is because that they either as one of the main characters have, been sent out on an injury, or that they do not fit a faction. The character plays a huge part in the second book, as one of the leaders of the faction less, but in the movie, he was not sent to the faction less. This part, was the part I was looking forward to the most in the movie, I was at the edge of my seat when the part of the movie correlated with the book, but it never happened. This problem is...
... middle of paper ...
...the shows or movies themselves leave me on the verge of hating the series altogether. I realize that the show shouldn't be exactly as the book, word by word, however, having it so that things can be expected easily, or having it so that key factors in the book were left out in the show or movie, is something I cannot fathom.
Everywhere I go, everyone I talk to that has the same reading interests as me, they all agree that the show or movie made out of the stories are not nearly as good as the stories themselves. They all agree with me that one is better off reading the book alone, and not watching said shows or movies. It may be hard to believe at first, as I was one who didn't believe it, but after I started reading Manga, I started getting hooked onto it, I stopped watching the Anime adaptions in general, and soon the same will happen with the books I am reading.
The novel Speak, written by Laurie Halse Anderson is about a girl, who gets raped in the summer before the start of her freshman year in high school and the book follows her as she tries to cope with the depression that comes that kind of violation. This book was turned into a movie; and released early in the early 2000’s and when adapting books to film, a lot of information and details are lost in the process. When comparing Speak the novel and Speak the movie, the noticeable differences are; the character relationships, Melinda’s character, and Andy Evans and Melinda’s dynamic.
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.
When you get to the beginning, middle, or end u realize they are both very different. The movie and book have a lot in common like they both have the same characters .
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
A well-known masterpiece written by Agatha Christie in 1939 is adored by anyone who reads the book. And Then There Were None has captured the essence of a locked door mystery. Ten murders were invited, and they never knew their death was going to occur on Soldier Island. Produced and directed by René Clair, Ten Little Indians, which is based upon the marvelous, And Then There Were None. Louise Hayward and Barry Fitzgerald starred in this movie. The movie won the Best Direction, Lacrado International Film, and the Golden Leopard award. René Claire added a hint of romance and more than half of the changes in the movie are not included in the book.
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.
In this day in age, it is very common to find films adapted from books. Many of those films do a very well in their adaptations, but some fall short. Since it was finished, and even before its release date, the V for Vendetta film has gained some controversy from its own author. But, although the film did not end up how Alan Moore, the author, would have wanted it, he did not contribute to the project, even so, the filmography very clearly kept with the original work and showed itself as a product of the time.
Whedon's production of Much Ado About Nothing is a modern, black and white retelling of the famous Shakespeare play of the same name which tells the story of love and deceit between two couples: Hero and Claudio, and Beatrice and Benedick. While Hero and Claudio court and prepare to marry each other, Beatrice and Benedick steal the show away with their wit, humor, and constant bickering. Though they both insist that they hate each other, the flashback presented at the start of the film suggests that there is far more to the story than meets the eye. While the style of the film certainly enhances the story being told, making it a timeless classic entangled with modern society, it is the ensemble cast that work both individually and as a unit which make the film a true masterpiece, as well as the genius idea of a change in scenery that propels a sense of realism not often found in your average Shakespeare adaptation.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.
The Hobbit was a very popular book in the twentieth century it would make sense it would have an movie, but the movie was not exactly like the novel in fact it had big changes in the scene of the trolls, but why would Peter Jackson the director do this. Why would he change Tolkien the author book and his events. It was to make the movie more believable and it was very effective. Tolkien novel The Hobbit main story plots was about a Hobbit named Bilbo Baggins goes on an adventure with an wizard and dwarfs to reclaim their lost gold from Smaug a dragon that took their precious gold. Two changes Peter Jackson made to the film compare to the film was how Bilbo Baggins was captured by the trolls and how they escaped by the help by Gandalf the great
Many novels have been adapted into films. It gives the readers a solid picture rather than leaving it up to their imagination. One very famous example of this is The Hunger Games series. The iconic novel written by Suzanne Collins follows Katniss, a girl who volunteered to be in the brutal killing competition her country puts on every year called The Hunger Games. The series consists of three novels, The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay. It also consists of four movies The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, Mockingjay Part 1 and Mockingjay Part 2. As in any novel that becomes a movie some things are changed. Some scenes are taken out, some are added in, and some are altered from the novel. One scene that is taken out of the movie, is when the mayor’s daughter Madge gives Katniss the mockingjay pin that
Imagine if your work was to be published, but the publishers required you to change even the most minute detail to fit their need. This work would be unrecognizable, not at all what you wanted to convey with your story. This is essentially what happens with every movie adaptation of a popular novel, and readers are always enraged. One such case is The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak, which was unnecessarily changed. The lack of many important details in the movie adaptation of The Book Thief shows how obvious it is that movies must stay true to the book for full effect.
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.
"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