Literature vs Film

The PBS article on film adaptation discusses the challenges of adopting a novel into a film and the changes film makers must make. Most of these novels that are being read in schools are being made into movies. In these movies though, the narrator disappears in the movies which is a main factor of a book because they would show many characteristics about a character. The great thing about movies is that instead of a narrator, everybody can see the emotions on the characters faces and explains what the character goes through. For example, in the film “The Pedestrian” instead of having a narrator the creator of the film added another character in to show their feeling and emotions and others(Bollinger). Film is limited in many aspects as in

Sometimes in movie production a film is developed from a piece of literature. Directors will use the plot of a book either to create a unique movie, or to give the audience a chance to see what their favorite book is like when acted out on the screen. Willa Cather's "Paul's Case" is a good example of a work adapted to video. The movie has slight differences from the book, but the director Lamont Johnson follows the original closely.

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.

I didn’t pick the book over the movie because I think books are boring. When you are watching the movie you don’t have to use your brain that much. When I’m watching a movie about any type of genre that has a book that goes with it, I usually ask questions to myself (in my head) about

Sometimes in movie production a film is developed from a piece of literature. Directors will use the plot of a book either to create a unique movie, or to give the audience a chance to see what their favorite book is like when acted out on the screen. Willa Cather's "Paul's Case" is a good example of a work adapted to video. The movie has slight differences from the book, but the director Lamont Johnson follows the original closely.

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.

For instance, the book talks about how the greasers felt and how their feelings were, then in the movie, it didnt talk about it but it showed it. The way that they showed it was not as good as it was written. When reading we don't fall in love with the characters' appearance. We fall in love with their words, their thoughts, and their hearts. We fall in love with their soul. In movies we focus more on appearance and what's going on in the background, which then gets people distracted from what the character is feeling and their thoughts. On the other hand, you can see the actions of the characters in the movie, which might help you process the way they act, however with the book the author can use what he thinks and try to give people a general idea of everything. For an example in the book it talks about how Randy

The PBS article, on film adaptation, discusses the difference between written text and film and the struggle of adapting a book into a movie. Statistically, 65 percent of all novels are adapted into a film. Stories and novels rely on the narrator to tell the story whereas, films don’t usually have a narrator. Films tend to be way shorter then a novel or story because one frame can be worth six pages of description. Films have a pro side and a con side, one con is that a film takes away your own personal perception while with any written literature, one has their own perception of a certain scenario, what a character looks like, etc. Unlike written literacy, a film has certain limits, for example, time, interaction, money, and

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

Some people say movies are the way to the heart, but have you ever read a book? Books are way more descriptive than movies because they add so many more important details. Movies are not as descriptive because they try squishing an eleven hour reading into a two hour screening. Finally, movies always leave out important scenes and characters. On the other hand movies are pretty cool because they do have some pretty creative images that you would have never imagined before. The book version of “Percy Jackson The Lightning Thief” is better than the movie version because the book includes characters like Ares, Cerberus, and the Three Kindly Ones.

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.

As Stephen King, an author, once said, “Books and movie are like apples and oranges. They are both fruits, but taste completely different.” Which is true. The movie a Raisin in The Sun is better than the book because the movie gives more details and information rather than the book. By adding more details and information to the movie, it makes it seem more interesting than the book. Even though the author added little details to the movie it feels like there are a lot going on. The book compared to the movie just seems boring. Change is good, sometimes in life you have to try new things to make something better. By changing the movie up a bit, there seems to be more going on, as was mentioned before. Like it was said in the quote, the movie and book looks the same and has the same features, but it is also completely different from one and other. Like it was said in the quote, the movie and book are similar, but are different in many ways. Here are some examples that are listed in the next three paragraphs.

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.