Movie Vs Movie Analysis

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

According to rotoscopers.com, “Hollywood… is out to make money and so they alter a book’s plot to appeal to a wider audience”. As a result, characters and scenes that may be important in the book are no longer necessary in motion pictures. For example: the book How to Train Your Dragon, a story about Vikings and dragons, was made into a movie and has dozens of new characters as well as a conflict change. In the book, the Vikings capture a baby dragon and train it to become their hunting animal. In contrast, the movie shows that the Vikings are at war with the dragons and fight to keep them at bay.

One of the hardest things for a director to do is to turn a book into a movie. There is a fine line between keeping the movie just like the book, and by barely crossing that line you can end up making a completely different vision than the book has set out for you. There are also many viewers out there that will completely hate the movie if it is nothing like the book that they read originally. The director has to realize that although there are many different types of audiences to please, that it still has to be a great movie that people cannot stop talking about.

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.

Ideally, a novel and its film version complement each other, which, on many levels, is the case with To Kill a Mockingbird. However, film can accomplish things that novels can't, and vice versa. Likewise, film has limitations that a novel doesn't. This essay explores some of the differences between To Kill a Mockingbird, the film and the novel.

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

“Books are better than movies because you design the set the way you want it to look.” This quote comes from Trent Reznor and some may agree and some may disagree. When reading a written version , the reader can visualize characters in their own way with context clues from the book. In movies, the viewer sees the characters the way the director wants to portray them.

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

The reader must use his imagination to create the characters and the setting in his mind. Movies do not allow the viewer to enhance their imagination because the movie scenes only show the characters and setting through the director’s eyes. Everyone’s mind differ than another and each person imagines things differently than another might. By reading books, people can stretch their own unique imagination. Additionally, movies may not portray the characters or setting in the way that the reader imagined it. When watching a movie, often the movie shows a scene differently than the reader thought and can ruin the book for the reader. For example, when I read J.R.R Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, I had imagined the forest of Lothlorien as beautiful Elven buildings in a wonderful forest, but when I watched the movies, Lothlorien was large Elven houses built in the trees. As a result of watching the movies, my way of thinking of Lothlorien is ruined. Even though movies visually appeal to people, with the CG characters and special effects, they do not let you think about the characters and setting for yourself. Watching a movie do not let the viewer stretch his imagination and challenge himself. Books allow the reader to imagine the setting and characters for themselves with no input from

ʽThe book was betterʼ is pointed out by Robert Stam as one of the most common made statements comparing a novel and itʼs cinematic adaptation. Therefore, a clear focus on the loss rather than a gain can be detected.1 The notion of fidelity between a novel and the adaptation seems to generally have a high importance to the masses; one can be disappointed if the adaptation does not meet personal expectations such as narrative, thematic and aesthetic features.2 Fidelity between a literary and a cinematic work might, according to Stam, be impossible due to automatic differences in change of medium.3

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.

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.