I have put a great deal of thought into what makes a piece of literature good as opposed to what makes a film good. I, like many people whom I am compelled to call the generation of Harry Potter, tend to judge a film by how faithful it is to the original literature. It is our steadfast belief that the merit of a film is solely dependent on its accuracy to the books we hold so near and dear. However, we are wrong.
One interview by John Green put this in the most plain way. He was asked how he felt about the films that were made based off of this books. He said that he completely loves the movies, but they are not the same as the books. In the fact, he stated that that a movie cannot be faithful to a book. Green said, “A movie is mostly something
…show more content…
Books are mostly perceptual, which gives them their own brand of magic, and movies are almost exclusively a auditory and visual experiences. In this sense, there almost is no argument when it comes comparing the two. They need to be assessed separately and based on their effective representation of the story, which is what really matters.
That being said, my analysis of The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky is a fascinating one because it, in fact, is so faithful to the book. Both have the same level of character development, theme exploration, setting and symbolism which I believe comes from it being a special brand of storytelling. To start, I would like to note that I thoroughly enjoyed both adaptation of this story. It is often difficult to emulate the methods of literature, but diary or letter form of writing is far more agreeable to the transfer from paper to the big screen. I found this to be the same in other works of the similar style. For example, The Color Purple by Alice Walker. This book is in a similar diary style of storytelling and is easily transferred across medium to film. From this, I can say that, for the most part, if you enjoyed the book, you will enjoy the movie. Regardless, I did find a few differences between the book and movie version of The Perks of Being a Wallflower which both knockdown and boost-up the
book was blander. The book did not catch my attention as much. The movie really caught my
I like the reading book better than watching the movie because there are more facts in the book than the movie. Maybe I just like reading books better than watching movies. That’s my opinion. What’s yours (if you’ve read the book and seen the movie)?
...d coloring of certain images. The novel, however, puts much greater emphasis on the imagination and creativity, and on the main character Tita. The novel really makes the reader feel Titas pain and grow with her as she discovers her freedom, whereas the movie failed to achieve this. Moreover, the movie tends to ignore the significant of 3 integral motifs, cooking, tears and sensuality.
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...
There are many differences and similarities in the book, movie, and both. The book is some what different from the movie. There are many differences between the book and the movie. Like when PonyBoy and Johnny went to the movie theater Pony wished that he was big and buff like the guy in the movie.
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.
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.
One thing that can make a book good is characters. In the book, there were many more animals in the farm. The movie did not show many animals except for the main animals. Even thought this is a small difference, it can be noticeable. In the book, Mollie was a character.
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 film that was produced after the novel has a lot of differences and not as
From reading the book and watching the movie, I think the book was more insightful, but the movie was more entertaining. The only problem with the movie is that you don't know what is going through Chance's mind and his background information. The movie does help make some things clearer by seeing it, instead of just picturing it in your mind. The added scenes in the movie helps to put some humor into the story and make it more entertaining. By just watching the movie, some people could be confused if they don't know some background on Chance. I think that by reading the book, you can understand the story better and by watching the movie you can enjoy the story better.
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