Maria Arellano Period 4 Pride and Prejudice: Differences Between the Movie & the Book When filming a novel, especially one as well-known as Pride and Prejudice, differences can be observed between every adaptation that is made. These differences mainly arise from different opinions concerning the actual conceptual message of the book and therefore lead to rather different intentions of what an adaptation should be about. Hence the fact that no matter which book is turned into a movie, there are going to be different things between the two. Although there were some differences between the novel and the movie, to an extent the movie is still able to depict what Austen wanted her readers to take from the book even though there were some major changes. They say that the “first-impression” you leave on someone, will create a lasting impression, which will lead to the creation of their opinion on you.
The book also has more suspense while the movie moves too fast and cuts out scenes. The movie moving too fast causes it to be very predictable. Three major differences that stood out include missing characters and characters perceived differently, essential scenes left out and the way the book shows individual people while the movie shows the relationships in action. The book versus the movie shows clear differences but the morals are all still the same. ... ... middle of paper ... ... To say both the book and the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird were closely related would be an understatement.
The original script remained the same for the movie adaptation. However, even if we say that both adaptations are pretty much the same, there will be revisions, small or big, just like any other typical stage play turned into film. The opening scene is one of the key points which makes the film version outstands the play version because of visual effects that is implemented to the movie. Censorship played a significant role in altering the image of the play that is why original screen is different from play due to regulations of Motion Picture Association of America. The film version has less exposure of the issue when it comes to bisexuality and child exploitation compare to stage play version.
However, perceptions between the two differ from even each other. As Lupack says: In asserting an adaptation we are not really comparing book with film but rather interpretation with interpretation - the novel that we ourselves have recreated in our imaginations, out of which we have constructed our own individualized “movie,” and the novel on which the filmmaker has worked a parallel transformation. (10) Although we do have our different perceptions about the novel and the story within it, these perceptions are, more or less, similar to each other. As these only vary so much from each other, they can still be a considerably veritable basis of comparison for the two versions of this story, the versions focused on being the novel and the the film. When comparing between our variations, we can compare the changes to see “how much of written work’s plot and characterization has been translated into the new medium, how comprehensive and intelligent an understanding of the original (its strengths, its weaknesses) underlies the translation” (Hunter 159).
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.
The reader expects to feel the same way he or she did when reading the literature. It is challenging to limit revision due to the nature of film and literature being two very different ways to portray stories. It is similar to comparing an oil painting to a statue. There is also too much content in a novel to have it all put into a movie, sections of it have to be cut out (Boggs). As expected, a higher dedicated audience to a work of literature will be critical towards any given movie.
Such as Zeffirelli uses a more realistic feel as to Luhrmann who uses a postmodern feel in his. But which film is better? How are they different? In this paper, I would like to focus on why Zeffirelli’s film is faithful to the play by exploring the differences between his and Luhrmann’s film of Romeo and Juliet. In the beginning of each film is where the differences first start off, the scenery is one of the main and major differences between the films.
So many things brought the movie down. Poor acting, bad plot development, and awkward cinema techniques are some of the things to blame. After watching the movie I was left with a lot of questions. I felt like the movie could almost have been saved if some of the things in the movie were a little more developed, like the images from the video, and if the plot was made to be a little less fantastical. Then again, I also thought that if a couple more elements of dry humor and even further out plot twists were made, Ringu could have been a wonderful comedy.
However, a film can give a limited visual representation of the author’s story, characters, setting, and theme. Sometimes directors can change the story to fit their vision, ruining the author’s original story. Books occur to be better than movies because
Some details that get left out make the story a little bit harder to comprehend, however, other details that get eliminated add to the excitement of the movie. In any book to movie compare and contrast there will be similarities and