According to the article, “ Are Books Better than Films?”, “Films can bring whole worlds to life before our eyes, make characters into living, breathing fleshing blood, but books let you live everything” (“Are Books Better than Films?”). Very often book lovers are unsatisfied with the movie adaption of their favorite book. No doubt there have been great book based movies but that does not take the place of reading the actual novel. Reading books is better than watching the movie. This is better because often the movie tends to misinterpret information, which changes the plot, and lack sufficient character development.
One of the leading reasons why screenwriters change up the story line of a novel is because the book is simply too long to include everything. If a movie followed the book exactly, the finished product would be much to long for an audience to view in one sitting. Writers will often take out parts that are irrelevant. Mario Puzo is the author of a popular novel called The Godfather. When the movie adaptation was release fans of the book noticed a few parts were missing.
The screenwriters must have made this up because the author doesn’t even mention it. The differences between the book and the movie both helped it and hurt it. Of the many changes made between the book and the movie, most were made to keep the audience interested in the story. Most people who watch TV don’t have a long attention span. Executives at NBC didn’t want to spend millions to produce a movie and then have nobody watch it.
Lord of the Flies Literature versus Hollywood Many novels are such successful sellers that producers can’t wait to put the story onto the big screen. Most of the time the original novel is much better than the movie because it is able to capture the characters true emotions. In the novel “The Lord of the Flies” William Golding was trying to capture the reader’s imagination. Overall the novel is better then the movie because it has a better description of the characters thoughts and feelings. Symbolically it allows the reader to grasp the concepts that are not relevant throughout the movie.
In general, I thought that this class was a pretty good easy class. I liked that we were about to work with the same topic throughout the course of the class. For my topic that I picked for both of the essay and the visual argument was books vs. movies. I really like my topic because it is a very polarizing topic, people either like books more or they like the movie more. While I was trying to find reasons to pin the two against each other, I found out that most of the time if people have read the book before than most likely they thought the book was a lot better than the movie.
But only when all these are believably portrayed are they interesting films. Fantasy films that have failed badly because of this (in my opinion) include 'Labyrinth' and 'Willow'. High profile fantasy films released in recent years include the 'Harry Potter' series and 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy. Both were based on sets of books, which were first released as films at around the same time- December 2001. People are forever comparing the stories, and the two groups of fans can be impressively passionate as they argue their cases.
I much preferred to read realistic novels, historical biographies, and non-fiction. Looking back, I am now struck by what I failed to see. The release of Peter Jackson's magnificent The Lord of the Rings trilogy prompted me to rediscover Tolkien and his greatest work. These remarkable movies accomplish what many Tolkien fans were certain could never be done--they bring these epic tales to life and, in the main, get the story right. Moviegoers who have never read the books will find the films to be among the most imaginative and powerful dramas ever brought to the big screen.
... ... middle of paper ... ... To say both the book and the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird were closely related would be an understatement. Though neither was better or worse, the movie and the book were completely different. Minor differences between the movie and the book include one being easy to read due to narration, and one moving too fast causing the story to be rather predictable. Major differences that changed the whole viewpoint of the story consist of missing characters and characters perceived differently, important scenes left out, and the different was the book and the movie represent the characters and relationships. Overall, the book represents two children trying to enjoy their childhood while becoming good people in the process and the movie is based around a wrongful trial of a black man in the South.
Also, books usually have more characters and give continued suspense so that the reader will be hooked or addicted to finish the book to find out the story. On the other hand, movie producers need to eliminate so many details about the story in order to squeeze everything into one to two hours. Due to this, those people who love detail information about stories usually prefer books than movies as movies does not have a detailed information about the story. Furthermore, reading books can not only enhance the reader’s vocabulary and creativity, but also increase their reading and writing skills, while watching movies only provides entertainment (Lee, wordpress.com). Therefore, books and movies have their own importance and it completely depends on people whether they prefer reading books or watching movies.
Chris Columbus’ film representation of the novel The Lightning Thief (2005), while proving to be disappointing in regards to the plot when compared to the novel, both representations were able to clearly create connections to Aristotle’s three ingredients for persuasion: Ethos, Logos and Pathos. In recent times, Professor Jeanne Fahnestock has devoted her thoughts and efforts to understanding what she calls “The Appeals: Ethos,... ... middle of paper ... ...ece of work will successfully incorporate each of these forms of rhetoric. Another point that was made was that Rick Riordan’s plot in the novel was far superior to the film adaptation. The movie was simply missing and altering too much of the plot. So, why is the book better than the movie?