In this day and age, it seems that every successful book has a cinematic counterpart, but some viewers endlessly compare book to the film adaptation, looking for inconsistencies. With so many films being based off books, some are more accurate to the original text than others. Cinematic adaptations of books can be creative in some respects but should mostly stay literal to the original book that the film is interpreting.
One of the biggest motivations/reasons for adapting a beloved novel into a book is so that audiences can visualize and view the events in a book that they love. This is successfully shown in the movie Jurassic Park when the character Ian Malcolm states "life finds a way." This quote is consistent from the book to the movie
…show more content…
This is avoided in Jurassic Park when multiple pivotal scenes are left in the end of the movie, creating an ending that is filled with suspense and tension. Without this scene, the ending would not have been effective, or as overall entertaining. Almost every even that happened in the text version of Jurassic Park appeared in the movie; this was a positive choice that the filmmakers made. The imagery in the book is one of the main reasons this book is so beloved. One quote from the book that is filled with descriptive imagery is on page 78, “He was looking at the graceful, curving neck of an enormous creature, rising fifty feet into the air.” And again on page 79 with, “this long-necked animal had a gracefulness, almost a dignity about its movements.” This imagery plays a huge role in how this scene (and the rest of the story) is shaped. This shows how it is imperative to interpret movies more literally than creatively, because these movies are meant to capture and visualize the parts of the story that made the book so popular in the first place, not to make things up and add things to the story. This is why literally interpreting books is more beneficial that letting them be interpreted creatively. Movies can be creative, but not enough to ignore what made the novel popular in the first
Jurassic Park: Comparison Between Book and Movie. Michael Crichton, a master of suspense, has created a novel for your imagination. This book features prehistoric animals and plants from the Jurassic era. Steven Spielberg took on this book, as a movie project, to add to his collection of visually mastered Science-Fiction motion pictures. Both the movie and the book have captured the imagination of people around the world.
Many novels are transcribed from their original texts to films. Some of the movies are similar to the original plots, others do not follow the authors work. Alice Hoffman’s novel Practical Magic is altered when it is made into a movie; and Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible which was also made into a movie, was extremely similar to his original writing. There are multiple variables that account for how a movie is made some of them include; the amount of income, how much can be changed, and the author’s approval. The two recreations previously mentioned, have two completely different outcomes, the results all depend on the amount of creative licensing the movie company has.
When I was little, I used to stay up late at night, watching old movies with my father. He worked at night, so on his nights off, he often could not sleep. Our dad-daughter bond was, no doubt, forged by our love of old black and white and even cheesy films. It was on one of these late nights that I first saw a huge snake coiled next to a tree, draped in a glittery sheep’s fur. I am sure that my eyes were big with awe the whole time, for to this day, when I watch or even read mythological stories, I feel the same childhood awe. The movie Jason and the Argonauts, directed by Nick Willing in 2000, is certainly not as campy as the old black and white, but it is just as awe-inspiring as is Peter Green’s translation of Apollonius of Rhodes’ version of Jason’s story: “Argonautika: The Story of Jason and the
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.
Have you ever read a book and then watched the movie and saw many differences? Well you can also find lots of similarities. In the book “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and the movie “Tom and Huck” there are many similarities and differences having to do with the characters personalities, the setting, the characters relationships with one another and the events that take place.
So many books or pieces of literature have been made into films. At times the films can mirror exactly what the author wrote and hoped to convey, but often films can either create this sense of enhancement of the book or distort it completely due to more or less background information and a change the perspective of the main character. The book Into the Wild, written by John Krakauer was one of those movies that was recreated into film by director Sean Penn. This is a story of a young man who is unsettled with the poisoned ways of society. He goes on to destroy his previous identity and creates a new one, he abandons his home, car, life-savings, and family life to live on the road and in the wilderness of Alaska. It was mentioned he was trying to escape society as a whole and find himself and happiness. Both the book and the film follow a pretty consistent plot that correlate with each other, both making it evident that Chris was a polarizing subject. So, why does the book portray Chis McCandles as a charismatic, outgoing, well-educated nice kid, as where the movie portrays him more as foolish, immature, unprepared boy biting off more than he can chew? It all depends on your interpretation of both sources within the given information. The following comparison will address the book versus film version of Into the Wild and raise the issue of the amount of background information given in the book versus the film and the change in perspective of the main character Christoper Johnson McCandles.
There are many similarities presented to the audience between the movie and the novel. One
Jurassic park is a novel presented about a group of scientists who visited an island and they were able to gather leftovers of DNA from an insect that was well kept in amber. The fossil DNA was “cloned” into selected amphibian DNA, and presto, replicated fossils were rejuvenated out of destruction on the island. Jurassic Park was printed in 1990, amid the passion of the information period when apparently the entire world was rapidly concerned with mechanizing. Corporations and entities wanted to mechanize their lives and jobs, although occasionally on a considerably smaller scale than that of Hammond's Park. This happened just a decade before the foretold ‘Turn of the Millennium’ super-computermal function that had computer mechanics and Information Technology specialists across the sphere revitalizing for disaster.
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.
It’s pretty clear that film and literature are very different mediums and when you try to make one into the other, such as an adaptation, you’re going to have some things that are lost in translation and seen in a different light. When an original work is made into a movie, I think they’re kind of at a disadvantage because they only have a few hours to get the whole story across while also keeping the viewer intrigued by what is taking place on the screen right in front of their eyes. Movies are able to contain special effects, visuals, and music though which can impact a viewer and make a scene stay in their mind longer which is a plus side to being able to view something. Literature on the other hand, has a greater advantage. They can keep the reader entertained for a considerably long time and you’re able to get more information about people and events such as what a character is thinking or what is happening behind the scenes during a specific event. I understand that people are going to have different opinions when it comes to whether a book or film adaptation of a work is the best and it is not always going to be the same for each and every piece of work. One thing I think though, is that The Namesake in both the film and the movie, they’re both accurate and concise in the way that they relate to one another.
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...
From a structural perspective, movies and novels appear as polar opposites. A film uses actors, scripts, and a set in order to create a visual that can grab and keep the attention of their viewers. However, an author strives to incorporate deeper meaning into their books. Despite these differences in media, 1984 and The Hunger Games present unique, yet similar ideas.
Into the Wild, a novel written by Jon Krakauer, as well as a film directed by Sean Penn, talks about Chris McCandless, a young individual who set out on a journey throughout the Western United States, isolating himself from society, and more importantly, his family. During his travels, he meets a lot of different people, that in a way, change his ways about how he sees the world. There are many characteristics to describe McCandless, such as “naïve”, “adventurous”, and “independent”. In the book, Krakauer described McCandless as “intelligent”, using parts in his book that show McCandless being “intelligent”. While Krakauer thinks of McCandless as being “intelligent”, Penn thinks of McCandless as a more “saintly” type of person.
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.
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.