A movie, even when it's good, doesn't often convey the feeling of the book it's based on. But in this case screenwriter Horton Foote treated the Harper Lee novel - about a Depression-era Alabama lawyer and his two children - with love and respect, and the director successfully evoked the novel's sense of childhood mystery and tenderness." (Dashiell) The same characters were the same heroes and the same characters were killed so the movie still resembles the book yet the directors choose to change some ideas around causing a different perspective while still maintaining the same morals. Some minor differences between the movie and the book include the book being much more descriptive and easier to understand where as the movie is harder to understand due to the fact that there isn't any narration. The book also has more suspense while the movie moves too fast and cuts out scenes.
There were many similarities and differences between book and the movie. I usually find movie better, but for this I like the book better because it was some events that make much more interesting which was not included in the movie. I didn’t liked watching the movie because we watched after we read a book. Well watching a movie, I knew what is going to happened next which makes it less interesting to watched. I may have choose movie because I can see physically without reading out and imagining.
However, the film is dependent on the directors vision and audience has little say on how the story is portrayed. I would rather read novels than watch films because novels provide better story experiences for their audiences through its increased creative freedom through imagination, lack of time limits, increased exposure, and the social experience it provides. I will be using two novels turned films for my analysis of this topic. I will be using examples from Golding's The Lord of the Flies and Morr... ... middle of paper ... ...lling stories than films. Novels are better than films because they give their audience complete creative control over how they visualize the story.
Unlike the magical world that the author, J.K. Rowling created, the only magic one can experience can come out of the pages of a novel. Reading is an outlet where one can explore new realms and to live alongside captivating characters a fictional world. When a story is so captivating, a reader can visualize what the author has written on paper; the possibilities for imagination are endless. Over the years, our favorite novels have become movies; some meeting the expectations, other not so much. However, a film can give a limited visual representation of the author’s story, characters, setting, and theme.
In modern times, there are so many different methods of getting a story as there are so many sources out there. In earlier times books have been reliable sources for reading a story, but now movies seem to be getting more popular even though they have the same story line as books. If movies are becoming more popular then why are people still reading books? Watching movies and reading books have several things in common, but there are some differences in the two that make people stay loyal to books. Reading books are better than watching movies because it has descriptive details that can hook a reader and can also improve their reading and writing skills.
The Speckled Band by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was entertaining as a written story, but it was even more enjoyable as a film because the movie played out scenes that were only described by dialogue in the book, flushed out the murder plot in a clearer manner, and created more realistic and dynamic characters. Turning older literature into movies that available to the general public prevents them from falling by the way side as many story from the past have a tendency to
So, now it is not only obvious that the movie is so much less confusing, but also how and why the movie is easier to understand. While Golding’s book is an “interesting read,” it is very lucky for everyone that there was not only one, but two movies made. Almost everyone agrees that books are normally better than the movies. In this example, that is not the case. Not even close.
Have you ever liked a movie more than the book it was based on? A book being made into a movie is sometimes stressful when it could be a total hit or a total flop. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer book by Mark Twain was a captivating book with details that molded well together. A movie was made in 1938 off of the book and I favored it over the book. The movie did leave me unsatisfied with its loss of an important scene that can cause confusion.
The movie adaptation of J.K Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is a very pivotal movie in the series. Like the book, this movie is crucial in setting up an understanding for the rest of the series. Therefore it is important that the movie complements the novel as much as possible. Using one of the most essential features of a movie; visual imagery, the movie adaptation of the fourth novel is a good accompaniment for the novel. The visual imagery in this movie emphasizes emotions and reactions that we cannot possibly obtain from the book.
Generally, movie adaptations of books are not exact replicas of the original. The reason is mainly that the original storyline needs to be modified in order to quench the audience's thirst for action, whereas those who read books usually enjoy the slow, steady build-up of a valuable plot which will never be replaced by movies. Moreover, books allow the reader’s imagination to roam free, but movies can offer a new and different perspective. The fictional novel The Sword in the Stone by T.H. White and its animated counterpart, also named The Sword in the Stone, by Disney are no exception.