In many movies there is a book created before the movie so the movie can base it off the book. Such as unbroken, a story of a man that was never broken after being held prisoner in japan during WWII, this book was made before the movie and came out completely different. The movie only took the important parts of the book such as running in the olympics and being held prisoner. In the movie there are many key differences between the book and the movie, but they both are still very similar. There are so many books and movies like that.…
Why is it that when a book gets it’s own movie that there are several differences between the book and the movie? Some people argue that the book is always better than the movie. There is a reason for this. Firstly, in most book to movie adaptations small details are changed or are just not included. Secondly, the movie often takes short cuts and doesn’t touch on certain aspects that were described in the book. Lastly, when reading a book you are free to make your own subtext and fill in the blanks with your imagination. The movie adaptations of books have always lacked the detail that's in the book, some things are completely cut from the movie to maintain a well paced story, and it fills in the gaps for us making the experience less unique.…
When you read a book do you visualize the movie in your head? When books are turned into movies most the time the author’s message is ruined, and the integrity of the novel. When someone writes a novel they write it from their point of view, their vision, it’s their story. But when a director hears, or reads the book they see it differently and from their point of view. Novels become a different novel when turned into a Hollywood movie because no one visualizes the same characters, settings or themes.…
Ever read a book, and then seen the movie? The book is usually better right? That’s most likely because of the differences. The book is more descriptive most of the time. Events in the book are missing from the movie. Or the movie adds some in.…
Movies and books are always different; in a movie you can show multiple characters, and in most books you're stuck in one character's narrative. For instance in the book The Giver the character Fiona doesn’t care about Jonas as deeply as she does in the movie. In the movie she stops her injections, and she starts to love Jonas. However in the book she only “enjoys having Jonas’s company”. In the movie she also helps Jonas steal Gabe before he is killed, and she is put in the community jail for helping him. Before she is going to be released she talks about how she has felt things. That she knows what it is like to truly feel, and in the book she isn’t this unorthodox.…
Such as in the end of the book when we learn that Margo actually had a diary in which she pretended that she was with Quentin the whole time she grew up. In this journal, she pretended that after they saw the dead man, she and Quentin remained together, but in the movie this diary actually never existed. The writers had taken it out completely. Another part that is also taken out is the part of Sea World, in this scene in the movie, Margo is like 10 years old, and after seeing the dead man in the middle of the road, she digs into him, as if she were a detective. She then goes to Quentin's room in the middle of the night and tells him to go with him to Sea World to talk to the ex-wife of the dead guy that they found, but Quentin refuses because he says “he doesn't want to get into trouble”. In the actual book, they break into Sea World and Margo is bit by a snake. Making Quentin suck out the poison. This for me was a key part of the movie and knowing that it was left out it changed my whole perspective, since for me when I watched the movie, it made me think as if they had gone to the park together they would have remained united, but since they didn't they weren’t. Now knowing that they did and that it still didn't happen makes me angry that the actual writers of the film didn't give this scene a chance to occur, nor the one of the…
There is concrete proof that an adaptation to a book can often become something hideous, just like in The Most Dangerous Game. If someone wants to make a good adaptation, many things should be taken into consideration. Some of these are: hire good actors, stick to the story, and don’t overdo the drama. Many directors are able to pull off adaptations. This original short novel was great, with lots of action and mystery. Then came along a few overconfident souls who decided they were good enough to remake Richard Connell’s…
When the characters were sad or happy, it seemed as if it was real and they weren’t just characters in a book. However in the movie it implies a different idea , because it didn’t seem to be as real as the book did explain it to be . It did come out as if it could have happened, but the way the actors acted their feelings out, it didn’t explain or express how they felt , when they were sad or happy. It seemed as they were trying too hard to act like they were heartbroken or scared or completely ecstatic. But whether the story comes from the pages of a book or a movie. They are full of similarity and differences, but in both, even though not everyone gets along in the beginning , the end is there to count…
An example of this is when True Son almost escapes to visit Corn Blade. The author writes “the unseen valleys, the unforded streams, the untrodden forest and the great shaggy, unclimbed mountain.” I can clearly see all of these things in my head. The movie also introduces Shenandoah and changes the plot completely. I personally do not enjoy romance movies, therefore, I did not like this change. The ending of the book also left you thinking. I like books that don’t tell you exactly what happened to the characters. You get to make up your own ending, and that’s why I think the book The Light in the Forest is better than the…
George Bluestone points this out in his article “The Limits of the Novel and the Limits of the Film”: “between the percept of the visual image and the concept of the mental image lies the root difference between the two media […] differences in form and theme are inseparable from differences in the media (Bluestone 1-2).” This can indeed be seen in the film adaptation of The Displaced Person, where the dialogue remains much unchanged, but details such as the peacock, an important symbol which defines a lot of characters by the way they interact with it, are not conveyed in a way that translates to film. Of course, it is hard to not become frustrated with films that do not live up to the expectations of the source material, but ultimately one cannot blame the director for making a bad adaptation, but for making a bad film. My brother, a young man who is very good at science, once wrote a report on a science experiment and made a low grade. He received this grade not because he had performed poorly on the science experiment itself, but rather because he had written a low-quality summary of the experiment. There is no question that the source material was of high quality, but oftentimes adaptations do not reflect this. Not due to unfaithfulness to the original, but the inability to convey the story in the way the medium…
Why I think the moviemaker chose those difference between the book and the movie was because in the book there was a narrator to tell you specific things. The narrator is there to tell some background information and make sure you get a better grasp of what’s taking place. So I feel as if in the movie they wanted you to pay closer attention to what was happening. And you have to have some differences between the two. While in the movie you can see more action and can sometimes explain things better by acting out, rather than being written out.…
1. Consider the effectiveness of the dialogue and storyline. Although many professional screenwriters do not get the same attention as actors or directors, they are the true architects of a movie. Screenwriters may adapt a book into script form, or they may create their own original stories for the screen. Either way, you should be able to sense an attention to detail in the dialogue and plotlines. A successful movie script uses authentic dialogue and scenarios that the actors can handle with ease. A less successful script places characters in situations that feel artificial or contrived. The language of the characters may be peppered with obscenities, or thoughts that seem to come more from a screenwriters mind than the characters. When analyzing the writing in a film, ask yourself if the dialogue felt honest and the scenes flowed…
The article "Is Facebook Making Us Lonely" was wrote by Stephen Marche and was published in the Atlantic. The article catch the eye of the reader because it can be relate to our daily life in this generation. Social network is a medium where everyone involve themselves in.…
Born in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1924, Donald M. Murray taught writing for many years at the University of New Hampshire, his alma mater. He has served as an editor at Time magazine, and he won the Pulitzer Prize in 1954 for editorials that appeared in the Boston Globe. Murray’s published works include novels, short stories, poetry, and sourcebooks for teachers of writing, like A Writer Teaches Writing (1968), The Craft of Revision (1991), and Learning by Teaching (1982), in which he explores aspects of the writing process. Write to Learn, (6th ed,. 1998), a textbook for college composition courses, is based on Murray’s belief that writers learn to write by writing, by taking a piece of writing through the whole process, from invention to revision. In the following essay, first published in the Writer in October 1973 and later revised for this text, Murray discusses the importance of revision to the work of the writer. Most professional writers live by the maxim that “writing is rewriting.” And to rewrite or revise effectively, we need to become better readers of our own work, open to discovering new meanings, and sensitive to our use of language. Murray draws on the experiences of many writers to make a compelling argument for careful revising and editing.…
Another example that comes to mind was the absence of certain characters. The family’s maid, Mehri, as well as Marji's good friend, is never mentioned in the movie. This was an important factor because throughout an incident that is described in the book we are able to learn the big issues with social class and in the movie it is something that we miss out on since it is not mentioned at all.…