When discussing the adaptation of books and short stories into film, one must begin with the understanding that adaptation can refer to two related yet distinct phenomena. The most common definition of adaptation connotes a kind of translation, wherein a filmmakers attempts to recreate a story more or less faithfully by translating the essential elements of the original text into a new medium. A less frequently discussed definition for adaptation refers to a kind of evolutionary response, wherein an organism or species changes in reaction to its environment. Film adaptations can exhibit this same kind of change in response to outside pressures, and the degree to which they diverge from their source texts reflects how much if this kind of adaptation is necessary. By comparing these two kinds of adaptation one is able to see how stories are simultaneously acted upon by the filmmaker and semi-autonomously adapting to external pressures, a realization that forces one to reexamine the common standards for what constitutes a good and a bad film adaptation. To begin, it is necessary to further explicate the two kinds of adaptations introduced above. The first form of film adaptation refers to the singular act of adaptation: a filmmaker adapts a story from a book into a film, and the verb implies an attempt to translate as many of the constituent elements of the story as possible into a different medium. In this sense of the word, adaptation refers to the external influence the
The task of creating a film based on a work of literature sends filmmakers on a challenge of sorting through which parts of the book are incorporated into the movie. The creators had to find a way to turn almost over 200 hundred pages of paper into about two hours of time. Consequently, many details of the original writing are left out, shortened, or changed entirely to “fit” into the script. This concept is shown in the movie version of the book, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, which tells the story of young Huck Finn as he travels down the Mississippi with a slave friend. Differences and similarities are apparent between the two adaptations of the story but both remain true to the original plotline. Even though certain literary elements of a novel, such as use of time, events of the story, and the characters, are altered, the main plotline is unaffected as a literature-based film is produced that meets specific real-life constraints.
In recent years, it has become popular for many of America's great literary masterpieces to be adapted into film versions. As easy a task as it may sound, there are many problems that can arise from trying to adapt a book into a movie, being that the written word is what makes the novel a literary work of art. Many times, it is hard to express the written word on camera because the words that express so much action and feeling can not always be expressed the same way through pictures and acting. One example of this can be found in the comparison of Ken Kesey's novel, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and the film version directed in 1975 by Milos Forman.
Today we are going to talk about two adaptations; Watchmen and Fight Club. I believe Watchmen to be a failure of an adaptation and Fight Club to be a resounding success. Watchmen falls on the faithful side of the spectrum, while Fight Club falls in the middle. We aren't going to talk about the unfaithful side today, because the further we stray that direction the less we focus on adaptations and more on projects that simply steal the name of a property for the sake of branding sort of like World War Z, which can’t even be called an adaptation because it only takes the name.
Many time in our lives, we have seen the transformation of novels into movies. Some of them are equal to the novel, few are superior, and most are inferior. Why is this? Why is it that a story that was surely to be one of the best written stories ever, could turn out to be Hollywood flops? One reason is that in many transformations, the main characters are changed, some the way they look, others the way they act. On top of this, scenes are cut out and plot is even changed. In this essay, I will discuss some of the changes made to the characters of the Maltese Falcon as they make their transformation to the ?big screen.?
The PBS article on film adaptation discusses the challenges of adopting a novel into a film and the changes film makers must make. Most of these novels that are being read in schools are being made into movies. In these movies though, the narrator disappears in the movies which is a main factor of a book because they would show many characteristics about a character. The great thing about movies is that instead of a narrator, everybody can see the emotions on the characters faces and explains what the character goes through. For example, in the film “The Pedestrian” instead of having a narrator the creator of the film added another character in to show their feeling and emotions and others(Bollinger). Film is limited in many aspects as in
The PBS article on film adaptation discusses the challenges of adopting a novel into film and the changes film makers must make. Most novels and stories have been turned into films. The “narrator mediates the meaning of what we read”, but in films the narrator is gone. The movies give the audience exactly what should be seen, and with words the reader has to use their imagination to see the movie in their head. Instead of being able to make up the film all together, the filmmaker has to re fashion the story in their own way. The filmmakers have to put their own traits or to solve problems they perceive in the original book. The filmmaker wanted to toughen the characters sense of hatred for the use of the viewing screens, which makes the different themes in Ray Bradbury’s “The Pedestrian ,” evident in the short story and the film adaptation.
Ideally, a novel and its film version complement each other, which, on many levels, is the case with To Kill a Mockingbird. However, film can accomplish things that novels can't, and vice versa. Likewise, film has limitations that a novel doesn't. This essay explores some of the differences between To Kill a Mockingbird, the film and the novel.
Children today have access to many forms of literature, some of which are books made into movies. As the children become older, comments such as “the book was way better” or “the movie didn’t even come close to matching the book” or “the movie and book are the exact same, so save time and just watch the movie” are heard once children begin to make connections between the book and the film. It is important to me, as a future teacher, to be able to address such comments from my students and, in turn, help them understand why and how movies can either help or hinder the book’s original value and message. To help me prepare, I will compare a children’s film to the literary work that came from it.
praises the film adaptation due to its cinematic influence and the influence that it has had
It is common in today's media-driven society to reach into the past for inspiration and ideas. A trend has developed where original works are transformed into other mediums. For example: books are turned into movies and/or plays, movies are turned into weekly sitcoms, and cartoons will spawn empires (Disney). These things happen so often that an audience rarely stops to question the level of authenticity that remains after these conversions. Perhaps it is only when a project is not well received that people begin to think of the difficulties involved with changing a work's genre. Using Gulliver's Travels as an example, discrepancies and additions in the movie can be
Behind every great movie, comes a storyline that is derived from a book however, most of the books to the movies have a great number of deviations. The screenwriters and other staff members to include the director come up with these deviations to enhance the plot in the attempt to make it a more interesting film to which in turn can make a better profit. The majority of differences that is found in films main objective is to enhance the mind. For example, when a scene has the ability to get a particular feeling out of a viewer, it is imperative to be able to understand the reasons for those feelings. The dialog and the visual effects of a scene sets a tone that differs from that of the book that it was taken from. Also, screen writers and
Book to movie adaptations have been an increasingly popular style of film. Many believe that the integrity of book to movie adaptations are lost when films are not exact replicas of the book. However, adaptations are a form of interpretation that involve some means of redesigning and reconstruction to convert them into a different art form. In this paper I will argue the reasons why I agree with the claim that O, Brother Where Art Thou is based on the epic The Odyssey.
Whether you fancy reading a book or watching a film, whether you consider yourself a bookworm or a movie enthusiast, or perhaps both or even something else entirely; there is bound to be something suitable for your tastes and preferences. In our day and age, many books often get adapted into films. This change of discourse undoubtedly affects the way we perceive the piece. An example for a book that has been adapted into a movie is the young adult novel “The Fault in Our Stars” by American author John Green.
“The last thing you want is Hannibal Lecter inside your head.” It is a daunting task to effectively transfer textual tonality from page to screen. Balancing proper visual interpretations of the text with original insights is not an easy procedure, and not every filmmaker is equipped with the artistic skills necessary to complete such an undertaking. Alejandro Jodorowsky’s wildly unsuccessful attempt at adapting Frank Herbert’s Dune, for example, ended in bankruptcy for the studio and premature cancellation of the project due to the extensive runtime the film was to have in accordance with the length of the book. Many filmic adaptations fail in their inability to recapture and translate what originally gave a text literary merit. Jonathan Demme’s adaptation of the quintessential Thomas Harris novel Silence of the Lambs is so well
Whenever books are adapted for film, changes inevitably have to be made. The medium of film offers several advantages and disadvantages over the book: it is not as adept at exploring the inner workings of people - it cannot explore their minds so easily; however, the added visual and audio capabilities of film open whole new areas of the imagination which, in the hands of a competent writer-director, can more than compensate.