Imagine if your work was to be published, but the publishers required you to change even the most minute detail to fit their need. This work would be unrecognizable, not at all what you wanted to convey with your story. This is essentially what happens with every movie adaptation of a popular novel, and readers are always enraged. One such case is The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak, which was unnecessarily changed. The lack of many important details in the movie adaptation of The Book Thief shows how obvious it is that movies must stay true to the book for full effect.
Characterization in a novel is an incredibly important tool for the author, as it sets up what the character will be like for the rest of the novel. Thus, characterization can never
…show more content…
For instance, the importance of Frau Hermann and her library were greatly downgraded. Liesel only stole one book from the library and the point was forgotten about for the rest of the movie. This was an integral plot point in the book that was just gleaned over in the movie. Also, Liesel didn’t return to the mayor’s house because she yelled at Frau Hermann about her son. Once again, this detail was only mentioned once in the movie before being forgotten about. In addition, the scene in which death narrates the backstory was greatly condensed in the film. This exposition helped set the scene in the book. Finally, the scenes in which Max pretends he’s boxing with Hitler weren’t in the movie. This is the scene I’m referring to: “‘In the blue corner,’ he quietly commentated, ‘we have the champion of the world, the Aryan masterpiece—the Führer.’ He breathed and turned. ‘And in the red corner, we have the Jewish, rat-faced challenger—Max Vandenburg.’” (173) This is the beginning of the scene where Max imagines he’s boxing Hitler. He eventually wins, but Hitler uses the loss as a way to spread propaganda. This shows how Max recognizes how hopeless his case is, and truly depicts Max’s mindset and really fleshes out his character. These scenes weren’t mentioned in the movie, and that’s a major contributing factor as to why Max isn’t as important. As stated …show more content…
The climax is arguably the most important part of a novel as it is the turning point of the story and normally the peak of the action. In the book, the climax was Liesel finding out Max was captured, as shown in the following quote: “‘Liesel . . . they got me a few months ago.’ The voice was crippled but it dragged itself toward her. ‘Halfway to Stuttgart.’” (342) Max said this when he was marching with the other Jews after his capture. This part of the story was emotional as Max was a very fleshed out and important character. It also led into much of the falling action, which included Hans being sent to the army. In the movie, this scene never even occurred, and instead, the climax ended up being when Max left the Hubermann household. Though this was very important, it had less of a role in the plot than the previously mentioned climax. Also, Max was rarely mentioned in the movie after he left, while in the book, he still played an important role, and was mentioned frequently. The climax is the turning point of the story and should almost never be changed, let alone completely omitted from the film adaption of a movie.
As stated numerous times throughout this essay, movies must stay true to their book predecessor for full effect. Books are normally beautifully described and written, and help the reader visualize a completely new world. Most movies, not just The Book Thief, normally omit several
Such as Gitl was not there at all as she was in the book. Yitzchak, Reuven, and Tziporah are all missing in the movie. Also their is Aaron, Hannah’s brother, who is not there. They were an important bunch of people that should have been included because I think they built the plot a lot better when they were there in the book. Plot was different too, important plot details in the book were left out of the movie such as different jobs in the camp. In the book there was a bunch of variety when it came to jobs such as sorting, cleaning, digging. In the movie there was only
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.
From the start, the movie is adapted from the novel and therefore it could not cover everything, some actions or acts in the novel are too dense such that it is not of any importance to angle them in the movie. It is very realistic to everyone that the movie cannot cover every single paragraph in the novel even the memorable ones. Some materials are left out in the film, and others were changed.
First of all, the movie is concise and more meaningful than the original book. Take an easy example of Macbeth, the movie
The film that was produced after the novel has a lot of differences and not as
As the case with most “Novel to Movie” adaptations, screenwriters for films will make minor, and sometimes drastic, adjustments to the original text in order to increase drama and to reach modern audiences. Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 film interpretation of The Great Gatsby followed the 1925 classic great plot quite accurately, with minor deviations. However, Luhrmann made some notable differences to the characters and settings of The Great Gatsby in order for the story to relate to the current generation and to intensity the plot
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.
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
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
Furthermore, fans of original novels often think they want a literal film adaptation of the piece, until they actually get one. Take me for instance, I am a huge fan of the Harry Potter franchise and always was always pleased with the way they portray the series on screen. I would argue that all the films within the series follow a faithful adaptation by always including the main events and leaving out the tedious details, resulting in a worthwhile film. There is one exception to this; David Yates’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part One. I believe this film, unlike all the others, followed an extreme literal adaptation. The movie dragged on and on and it really just seemed like a two-hour long trailer for Part Two. At the same time, it was a good movie, but I feel like it would have been better, had they added some extra action-packed events. On the contrary, Yates did do what the fans of the franchise had been requesting for almost ten years; he followed J.K. Rowling’s novel to a perfect tee, by literally making you feel like you were watching these characters backpack through the woods for nine months as they did the novel.
Some of the events that were in the book were not shown or did not happen in the movie. These were events like the bank note forgeries and some of the things that Squealer said to them like how he convinced them to let the pigs use the apples and milk in their mash. They did not even mention this event in the story. Other things that they did not even mention in the movie were the Sunday meetings and something they didn’t mention in the book was Napoleon’s addiction to whiskey. One of the main events in the book that was not shown in the movie was the battle where Boxer split his hoof. The only two battles that happened were the Rebellion and the Battle of Cowshed. One event that happened in the movie that did not happen in the book was when Squealer took Mr. Jones’s camera equipment and used it to speak to the animals.
The film may have edited out one of the drastic details that made the novel’s success, explaining the film’s failure.
Plot Structure – I felt that most of the exposition took place in the beginning of the first page. For the rest of the story there was mostly rising action. Then, I felt that the climax came when Julian sees his mother crumple to the ground. The falling action and resolution are packaged together in the last couple paragraphs.
The book, "Being There," is about a man named Chance, who is forced to move out of the house he lived in his whole life and his experience in the outside world. Based on the success of the book, the movie, "Being There," was made. The author of the book, Jerzy Kosinski, also wrote the screenplay for the movie. I think the major difference between the book and the movie is that in the book, we get to read what Chance is feeling and thinking, but in the movie, we only get to see his actions.
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. The screenwriters had to throw in some clever plot twists to keep people interested. Another reason the movie was different from the book was the material in the book was a little too racy for network TV. Take the ending, for example, nobody wants to see a grown man hang himself. This was a reason the producers had to change some material in the movie.