Advantages And Differences Between The Original And The Adaptation

Children today have access to many forms of literature, some of which are books made into movies. As the children become older, comments such as “the book was way better” or “the movie didn’t even come close to matching the book” or “the movie and book are the exact same, so save time and just watch the movie” are heard once children begin to make connections between the book and the film. It is important to me, as a future teacher, to be able to address such comments from my students and, in turn, help them understand why and how movies can either help or hinder the book’s original value and message. To help me prepare, I will compare a children’s film to the literary work that came from it.

Textual form is an issue which divide many critiques and audiences. Some view texts as a form being superior and more expressive, whereas others may view film as to be losing its credibility of expression. Never the less it is adamant that through a comparative study of two differing forms exploring similar ideas it becomes clear that one form isn’t always superior over another. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) mirror this thesis. Whilst being

Book to movie adaptations have been an increasingly popular style of film. Many believe that the integrity of book to movie adaptations are lost when films are not exact replicas of the book. However, adaptations are a form of interpretation that involve some means of redesigning and reconstruction to convert them into a different art form. In this paper I will argue the reasons why I agree with the claim that O, Brother Where Art Thou is based on the epic The Odyssey.

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.

The difference between the developing way of books and movies is magnificently huge because the way of emotion transmitting is different; the movie is based on vision, while the book is based on words.

The paper discusses how the critical reception shifts over a period of time. The paper is mainly focused on the film "Sunrise", directed by F. Marnau in 1927. Initially the movie got mixed reviews from the critics; however this film became to be known as a cinematic masterpiece in future decades.

In our world of advanced technology, we love to watch movies more than we love to read. Sitting in front of a flat-screen TV while eating popcorn and drinking soda would sound much more appealing than reading a book by the fire at night while drinking a frappucino from Starbucks. Now, producers and directors would take successful and famous stories and adapt it into a movie. Sometimes, they would succeed, with examples being the Harry Potter series, which received mainly positive reviews from both critics and the audience. However, most of the time these people would unknowingly butcher the book based movie by taking out many important characters and events, with good examples being The Lightning Thief and Eragon. Then another example of a

Behind every great movie, comes a storyline that is derived from a book however, most of the books to the movies have a great number of deviations. The screenwriters and other staff members to include the director come up with these deviations to enhance the plot in the attempt to make it a more interesting film to which in turn can make a better profit. The majority of differences that is found in films main objective is to enhance the mind. For example, when a scene has the ability to get a particular feeling out of a viewer, it is imperative to be able to understand the reasons for those feelings. The dialog and the visual effects of a scene sets a tone that differs from that of the book that it was taken from. Also, screen writers and

    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 discussion of wether film adaptations are better than their novels is ongoing. Khaled Hosseni’s “The Kite Runner” was a New York Times bestseller that was better than the film made for it. Films have time constraints as a long novels must be fit within a 1-2 hour time frame. They have production issues as some scenes from the book are inappropriate for all viewers. Movies also need to target a range of audiences to become blockbuster hits, whereas, novels do not. Although directors strive to make novel-based films as closely related to the books as possible, inevitable distinctions continue to exist.

In the world of modern technology there are many ways to keep one entertained and informed. Two of the best ways are through the reading of books, and the watching of movies: both are eternal works of art designed for those who would wish to momentarily leave the existent of reality and dive into a world unknown or to question the known world through stories of factual relevance. Both take the entertained on a journey that has been created in the minds of a genius, but, it is the way they take the entertained into their imagery worlds that are different. Books, for example require the reader to use there imagination to mentally visualize the image the author is trying to perceive. Movies, on the other hand, will have the audience mesmerized as the picture comes to life right before their eyes. Both books and movies are great evening actives

Literature can, at times, have a fascinating connection with film. Whether it is a film or a piece of literature, both are written by someone that wants to leave an impact on an audience. However, movies and books have different roles. They each have different strong points wherein books give better characterization, stronger revelations, and inner conflict, but movies create a better mood with music and visuals, showing much more emotion. It's a totally different kind of experience, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The movie version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, is essentially a visual, nonverbal experience. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a subjective experience, which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting. Utilizing its verbal medium, Clarke is able to explain his narrative, whereas Kubrick creates a visual and audial experience, through means of ambiguity, in which the viewer sees everything, is told nothing, and in which one cannot detect the presence of the film as one at all.

It is common in today's media-driven society to reach into the past for inspiration and ideas. A trend has developed where original works are transformed into other mediums. For example: books are turned into movies and/or plays, movies are turned into weekly sitcoms, and cartoons will spawn empires (Disney). These things happen so often that an audience rarely stops to question the level of authenticity that remains after these conversions. Perhaps it is only when a project is not well received that people begin to think of the difficulties involved with changing a work's genre. Using Gulliver's Travels as an example, discrepancies and additions in the movie can be

* In today's world, the packing is more important that the content. The cover of the book is more important the book itself. The cast of the movie attracts the audiences to theatres than the storyline.

Whether you fancy reading a book or watching a film, whether you consider yourself a bookworm or a movie enthusiast, or perhaps both or even something else entirely; there is bound to be something suitable for your tastes and preferences. In our day and age, many books often get adapted into films. This change of discourse undoubtedly affects the way we perceive the piece. An example for a book that has been adapted into a movie is the young adult novel “The Fault in Our Stars” by American author John Green.