Many people like to debate over whether a book is better than a movie and vice versa. Some will argue that, no matter what, a movie is always worse than the novel off which it is based. Others say that the visual experience will make the movie more enjoyable than a book. However, my opinion on the book/movie argument is unique for each different case.
There have been many times where I have read a book, and really enjoyed it, but was disappointed by the movie adaptation. I think this is understandable because readers expect the movie to be identical to the book that they loved. Unfortunately, this just not possible. Screenplay writers have to take a book, say around 500 pages, and turn it into a script that has a maximum of 120 pages. Inevitably some details or plot lines must be skipped over in order to create a movie that is a reasonable length. Screenplay writers understand that books being made into movies come with a fan base that is very passionate and protective of the work, so they try to stay as true to the original as possible, but it does not always work out in their favor.
There have been other times where I have read a book then watched its movie and have been impressed by the adaptation. Even though the movie is not identical to its inspiration, it still captures the same ideas and themes well. Some information is bound to get cut out, but in some cases the directors are able to pick out the most important aspects to keep. Also many times I read a book, see a movie, and notice that the two are quite different but are both enjoyable in their own ways. The movie may not be faithful completely to the book, but the director was still able to create a successful movie loosely based off the original.
After some research, I found some of the
best book to film adaptations that I'm familiar with:
 |
| Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adapted to film in 1971 |
|
 |
| Schindler's Ark adapted to film in 1993 |
 |
| To Kill a Mockingbird adapted to film in 1962 |
And now some of the
worst:
 |
| The Lovely Bones adapted to film in 2009 |
 |
| The Cat in the Hat adapted to film in 2003 |
 |
| The Chronicles of Narnia adapted to film in 2005 |
Monica, I have to agree with majority of what you said in this blog post. It is very true that people usually assume that the book will be better than the movie. In some cases this does not hold true. For example, I believe that the movie "Into the Wild" was much better than the novel. The novel, for me, felt prolonged and boring. The movie however,kept my attention throughout the entire hour and a half. There are times when I cannot say that the book is better than the movie or vise versa. For example, "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" was enjoyable to read as it was to watch the movie. The page to screen process seems challenging but majority of screen writers have mastered it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you had to say. (And i enjoyed the little best/worst section)...But as people say the book is usually better than the novel is pretty true. But also, it depends on what kind of reader you are. If it is hard for you to focus on a 300 page book then the movir is probably for you. Where you said that although a movie adaptation and a book may not be exactly the same, they still capture the essential plot and are enjoyable, is very true. overall, your post was pretty spot on.
ReplyDeleteSup ladies,
ReplyDeleteI just have to say that I disagree with everything you wrote on this page. It was almost as if you were trying to just make me extremely angry. (If you were, bravo, because you succeeded. (And I said bravo instead of brava because I was making fun of you #BOMB)).
First off, Charlie and the Factory of Chocolate Delights is a terrible movie. It was basically just a way for Johnny Depp to get out his urge to dress in drag and put on a bunch of make-up. Additionally, I heard he just did it to go on vacation to Liechtenstein because he wanted to go but was out of money.
Secondly, The Cat in the Hat was a phantasmagoric experience. (Truthfully, I don't even know what that word means). They really expanded on a plot that left a lot of questions unanswered, such as the motives of the Cat and the motives of his Hat. Plus, the movie got rid of that stupid rhyme scheme that Seuss writes in Iambic Tetrameter.
I hate your comments. Your lucky that I like you.
#BAI,
Hester Hemingway