I may have choose movie because I can see physically without reading out and imagining. I believe that I would still prefer to read a book because it is more interesting. I would recommend readers to read the book first because it has cover all those little events however, movie also was very good and cover most of the scene from the book.
People have to be determined and focused in order to complete a whole book. Everyone has, at some point of their life tried to read a book and some have even given up after battling to read through the first page. On the other hand, watching movies is easy and can save a lot of time. Usually a movie takes about two hours, while reading a book could take more than a week or even months for some readers. Individuals think perusing books and watching movies are the same, so they will watch the movie for their time 's sake.
The book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone differs from the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in many ways. Most of these differences include characters and scenes. The two ways to discover this Harry Potter adventure are to either read the book or watch the movie. In fact, a person would want to read the book if they wanted the entire perception of the story and all of the information inside; whereas, a person would want to watch the movie if they wanted a rough sketch of the story. The two have dissimilarities but the person choosing to read the book or watch the movie is in charge of what they want to have.
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.
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.
Some of the differences between the movie and the novel can be a direct cause of Joe Wright having his own opinions in regards to how he believes the message should be depicted. Although there were some differences in the movie that did not correspond with the book, Joe Wright was still able to fully depict the theme Austen wanted her readers to realize without fully staying true to what Austen wrote.
Pauls Case The Movie Vs. Pauls Case The Short Story by Willa Cather Sometimes in movie production a film is developed from a piece of literature. Directors will use the plot of a book either to create a unique movie, or to give the audience a chance to see what their favorite book is like when acted out on the screen. Willa Cather's "Paul's Case" is a good example of a work adapted to video. The movie has slight differences from the book, but the director Lamont Johnson follows the original closely. Most movies that are inspired by books hold some relation to the author's version, but are changed to fit the director's vision and perhaps make the movie more presentable.
Authors and movie producers often have different ideas about how to portray a subject, in this case, the beloved story of The Giver. When you compare the two versions of The Giver, the novel and the movie, you will find very apparent and important differences not only in the plot, but in the characters and setting as well. When reading a novel, you visualize the perfect setting, trying to recreate that perfect setting as a director can be a strenuous and difficult task. To begin, the members of the community, both in the novel and movie,
The “Life of Pi” book to movie compare and contrast is one of many differences and similarities that all either add to the effectiveness of the movie or take away from it. Some similarities remain that keep the movie in line with the book, however, there are many differences that leave gaps in Pi’s life story. The “Life of Pi” by Yann Martel is a rather extensive book that adds many details to almost everything. The movie cuts down those details and gets to the main point of the story as not to bore the audience. 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 the film, the director also left out such scenes and details to jump around between major action scenes. Philip Nel stated in “Bewitched, bothered, and bored: Harry Potter, the Movie” that, “The accumulation of minor details can create a markedly different experience between a book and a film, which may explain why my students who read the novel first seemed to be so critical of the film. The movie looks like the places in the book but it doesn 't "feel" like them because these little details accumulate (Nel)”. It is these missing little details that catch us off guard when watch a film based off a book; we expect those little details to be in the movie. Another example would be that the friendship between Harry, Ron, and Hermione did not seem as fluid as it was in the books.