Now for the counterargument. Some people say that they enjoyed watching the movie after reading the book. They may say that they think the movie does follow the book, and that the characters and events are the same in both versions. However, they are wrong because there is plenty of evidence that says otherwise. The different scenes of the book and movie, and also the characters that are completely different and don’t follow the same path in the two different
I prefer to read the book because it gave me more imaginations to construct. On the other hand the movie gave us lively and specific scenes. Therefore, both of them have their own advantages.
Main purpose and idea of the story. The idea that reading is freedom that can never be taken away from you. The book just could not have put all of these exclusive scenes and characters that brought out the purpose of the story within six measly chapters. Overall, the movie better explained the purpose of story that took place in a time when “It’s against the law for a Negro slave to read!”
Second there is more detail in the book than the movie. Well, I think that more detail is better because the more you know the better you understand the movie or
There are very few differences between the Book and the Film of To Kill A Mockingbird. But one of the few differences that you can’t miss is in the film there are several characters that were never introduced such as Mr.Dolphus Raymond, Aunt Alexandria, Uncle Jack, Miss Caroline, Cousin Francis, Miss Gates, and Aunt Rachel. Also in the film they left out some scenes such as the scene where it snows in Maycomb and Miss Maudie 's house burns down. A few similarities in both the novel and the film, first similarity is that Scout Finch is the narrator in both. Another key similarity is the story takes place in Maycomb, Alabama.
Ones perception on a book may or may not be changed once they see the movie produced that is based off of a book. While reading One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey I was able to visualize how I believed the characters would be in real life. Unlike the book, the movie is presented the way in which the producer views the characters taking away ones sense of imagination. A major difference between the book and the film is the point of view in which the story was told. The book is told in Chief’s point of view and the movie is not. I noticed during the movie there had been some scenes missing but they made sure to include the important ones. Some of the significant ones being McMurphy’s actions of choking Nurse Ratched. I believe when it comes to the characters in the book and the movie Chief came across differently. For instance, in the book Chief is portrayed as an out of the ordinary Indian, who doesn’t know how to talk so he pretends to be deaf and dumb, but in the movie the idea of him pretending to be deaf and dumb is not really noticeable which threw me off a little. Al...
Each movie or book has it own individuality but yet some movies and books can be
...urther perspective of the story. That being said, if I hadn’t seen the movie before reading the book, I probably would’ve had absolutely no idea what was happening. Because I had a picture of the movie in my mind while reading, I was able to fully comprehend what was happening, whereas if I hadn’t seen the movie I would’ve been totally lost and probably uninterested based on my lack of knowledge of the vocabulary. What was really helpful was the similarity between the book and the film, with the ending only slightly differing and a few detailed backstories omitted from the screen. Fincher stated that he wished to remain true to the novel, and I believe he did a great job at accomplishing that. Overall, I really enjoyed the novel and gained some more insight on the story by reading it. But in the end, I have to say that the movie grabbed my head and my heart more.
First of all, the movie is concise and more meaningful than the original book. Take an easy example of Macbeth, the movie
First of all the movie is more interesting if you like to watch movies then reading it. Now if you like to read that’s a different story. When you watch the movie you get more experience and you get to actually watch what’s going on. In the movie it’s just more exciting and you get to relax and the movie gives more action and detail. If you are better at watching the movie and understanding it then reading it then the movie would be better.
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.
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.
Hollywood in known for making literary adaptations, and such adaptations will exploit context. Movies bring literary properties to the public that otherwise would not bother to read them. However the "marriage" of literature and film holds their own separate qualities.
As Lemmy Kilmister said, “People don't read any more. It's a sad state of affairs. Reading's the only thing that allows you to use your imagination. When you watch films it's someone else's vision, isn't it?” Mind blowing isn't it? This is what people don't understand the meaning behind. What Kilmister is say is so powerful. People have gotten to the point where they don't even want to use their energy to read a book and imagine, to use the all powerful tool that God has blessed each and every one of us with to use on a daily bases, our brain. The greatest people have a mind that never stops working and by not wanting to put that into motion becomes a tragic thing. Watching a movie is watching someone else's imagination, someone else vision
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.