There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that over the last couple of decades movies have become more and more intricate and immersive. These effects can be directly linked to the advances in technology, which have allowed filmmakers to create very elaborate special effects and camera movements. As an aspiring filmmaker myself, it seems that the filmmaking and film going communities have grown exponentially over the last couple of years leaving behind other forms of entertainment such as books. With that being said it is sometimes a bit of a shocker to find out that some of my favorite movies were actually based on books that I had never even heard of before. Even though I am not a huge fan of reading myself, I do agree that reading the book will …show more content…
Some characters were changed, others were reversed while others were completely taken out from the movie. I will begin by discussing the role of Alan Grant. In the book he is described as an outdoors bearded man of forty while in the movie he is portrayed as a brainy scientist (CineFix). Now a few examples were roles were reversed. First, I will talk about the characters of Tim and Lex. In the book Tim is older and is good with computers while Lex is younger and more into sports. In the movie Lex is older and good with computers while Time is younger and has a deep fascination for dinosaurs (CineFix). Another example of reversed roles in Jurassic park is the characters of Ian Malcolm and Donald Gennaro. In this example the roles were not completely reversed but some of the characteristics were. In the book Ian Malcolm is a serious scientist and kind of coward while Donald Gennaro is a lawyer but portrayed as a muscular hero. In the movie Donald Gennaro is the coward that runs away while the tyrannosaurus rex attacked the kids and Ian Malcolm was the one that saved them. In the book that event occurred with Ian Malcolm running away and Donald Gennaro saving the …show more content…
Why do people not mind information being lost? The answer is very simple. In today’s society most people have such busy lifestyles that finding time to read a book is very difficult among the average person (“Britain’s dilemma”). Between school, work, and spending time with family, the last thing on people’s mind is to spend hours out of their already busy day to read a book. Especially in todays society which has been accustomed to quick and easy access to information. In the end, it is very convenient to just go out and watch a movie, not only does it allow people to experience great stories, it is also something that can be done with family or friends which makes it seem less of a hassle for some people. As stated before, it is understandable that it is more convenient to experience a story that has been adapted to a medium that allows more free time such as movies. Even if the movie does not follow the book word-by-word, most of the time it is great to enjoy a movie without worrying too much about the adaptation. However, experiencing life through the limited perspective of movies is a terrible way to
The characters make a big difference in the movie and the book. One thing they both have in common is that Otis Amber and Berthe Erica Crow get married. And that Edgar Jennings Plum and Angela Wexler get engaged instead of Doctor Denton Deere. Also Jake Wexler is a gambler instead of being a bookie.
Rikki tikki tavi I cannot get that song of the brave Rikki Tikki Tavi the mongoose out of my head. A mongoose is a furry creature from India who kills cobras or other types of snakes and if its eyes get red, the mongoose is mad. Also the mongoose is a curious creature It is strange how similar the book is in the movie. Some of these similarities are the conflicts, the resolution and the rising action.
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.
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...
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
Hollywood in known for making literary adaptations, and such adaptations will exploit context. Movies bring literary properties to the public that otherwise would not bother to read them. However the "marriage" of literature and film holds their own separate qualities.
One would think that it would be quite easy to adapt a novel to a screenplay; after all, what is there to do but turn the dialogue into lines and description into set design? However, common sense, aided by the horrifying number of absolutely awful adaptations, dictates that it simply is not that easy. When moviegoers have problems with a film adaptation of a book, their complaints tend to lie in the tendency of the creators of the film to change elements of the story: plot, character, and the like. It would seem, then, that the best way to make a successful adaptation of a novel would be to just stay as true as possible to every detail mentioned in the book. However, staying as true as possible to plot points, character type, and the like may be the best way to a horrendous adaptation.
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.
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.
Not only could a movie be made easily from this book just because of its fast moving plot, action sequences, and concern for the characters, it is a very informational piece of literature.
Have you ever watched a movie and realized it is much different from the book? It might make you wonder why the movies are so different from their source material. According to Quora, one of the biggest issues is time. Movies and TV shows have a limited time period in which to get the point across to the audience.While watching “The Muppets Christmas Carol”, I’ve noticed many differences between the movie, and Charles Dickens, The Christmas Carol. This might be because the movie is only one hour and fifteen minutes long, while the book being one hundred sixteen pages. But the movie wasn’t completely different, there was many similarities too.
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.
The first movies(besides the second one) have our main character Dr. Grant(Sam Neill) starring. Dr. Grant was such an iconic character in Jurassic park and Jurassic Park III that they should have tried to include him for the last time. Sure, Owen(Chris Pratt) was a great lead, but the inclusion of Dr. Grant would have been a big improvement. Another difference is that Jurassic World actually opened to the public. In the original Jurassic Park series, it was meant to be opened to the public, but failed because of the lack of security. Jurassic World had a fully functional park(until the Indominus Rex got out of coarse). The public was also not allowed on the original park, so Jurassic World was the first to allow them. Nevertheless, that's not the biggest difference. The biggest difference would have to be the dinosaurs. John Hammond had originally thought of the park to be a very educational experience where the world can know more about dinosaurs and how they used to roam the earth. They created their dinosaurs to be almost as realistic as possible, trying to almost mirror the original dinosaurs. Jurassic World on the other hand just really wanted to make money off of their animals. Lots of their dinosaurs were a mix of a bunch of different dinosaurs(like the Indominus Rex and the half pterodactyl and half t-tex) so they were genetic hybrids. This was the exact opposite of the original Jurassic
In the entertainment industry, it is quite common to base movies based on courts and crime. Criminal justice is a very interesting topic in the world of cinema. Most of these movies suggest a different perspective on the crime and its affects. Moreover, there is always noticeable differences between law on books versus law in movies. Primal fear is one of the finest of its kind. Defense Attorney Martin Veil decides to take the case of an altar boy named Aaron who is accused of murdering a priest. The boy is revealed to have multiple personality disorder and his case is dismissed due to an episode of the boy in the court. There are many differences between the movie and the actual law whereas notable differences such as defense attorney being readily available for the case, crime scene investigation issues, court trial and insanity evidence.
People have to be determined and focused in order to complete a whole book. Everyone has, at some point of their life tried to read a book and some have even given up after battling to read through the first page. On the other hand, watching movies is easy and can save a lot of time. Usually a movie takes about two hours, while reading a book could take more than a week or even months for some readers. Individuals think perusing books and watching movies are the same, so they will watch the movie for their time 's sake. Also, watching movies provide superior picture about the story since it is visual and is within a short timeframe so, the audience can remember the story easier. To add more, you can complete a movie in one sitting while to complete a book, you have to work hard and give a lot time for it. Furthermore, you can do anything while watching movies. For instance, you can do your assignment while watching movies or cook food and watch movies. On the other hand, while reading a book, you need to be fully focused on it else you don’t understand what’s happening in the story. Besides, movies continue renewing each week, whereas for a book to be composed and distributed takes a lot of time (Lee, wordpress.com). Before movies were made, most of the population read books to engage and improve themselves. Since movies came out, people are pulled in by the delightful and bright representation in the motion