The PBS article of the adaptation discusses the challenges of adapting a novel into a film and the changes of filmmakers must make. More than 65 percent of novels and stories have been turned into films. However, the narrator in stories or a novels are the main key because “In film the narrator largely disappears”(PBS). But in a movie gives the audience exactly what it should be seen, in stories, and novels the reader has to imagine in their own. The article explains that to do a film the filmmakers have to vision what's happening in the book to do the film.
Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things.
A major difference is that there are some characters that were in the book that aren't in the movie like Flora Baumbach, Theo Theodorakis, and Madame Hoo. Even though the movie wasn’t as good or as exciting as the book, they were both interesting and are fun to read and listen
One huge difference in the setting, in the book the story takes place on the shore of lake Michigan in a brand new apartment building in a small town. On the other hand the movie takes place old, run down apartment in the middle of a huge city. Another example is the characters, in the book there are 16 heirs with eight pairs. In the movie there are 10 heirs and 5 pairs. Also the movie leaves out some huge characters like Theo Theodorakis, Flora Baumbach, and
Have you ever watched a movie based on a book that told the exact same story? To me, for some reason, books always seem to be the better one out of the two. I feel that in novels, the author develops the story with as many details as possible, while in movies that aspect doesn’t appear in the same way. There aren’t as many details in films since it has to last for a certain amount of time, but books can last for as many pages as the author would like them to. When I read, the fascinating novel “Beowulf,” I really enjoyed how the author made me use my imagination to create a picture of the world that the characters were living in.
There are details left out of the movie that were in the book, the movie doesn 't demonstrate the ongoing theme of hunger as well as the book does, and the the movie does a better job with
In the end I found the film to be easier to understand vs the book as it was an easier and more straight forward plot line whereas in the book it seemed to jump around leading to constant flipping between stories and pages to get a better
I enjoyed the movie better than the book. It included just the right amount of action scenes, description words, and details from the story. The story was amazing but I like seeing things more than reading them. I usually like the movies better than the book.
Gettysburg Speech In 2000 at Gettysburg, Coach Herman Boone presented his football team with a heartwarming, pathos speech about a historical war event to cause his players to fathom the importance of acting as a team. Coach Boone’s Gettysburg speech was a mesmeric allusion to President Lincoln’s famous dedication, and provoked a comparison between one of the hardest fought battles of the civil war and the need for teamwork. His morning practice speech is meant to inspire by arousing images, to appeal to their emotions, on the consecrated field of one of the most difficult times in American History. “Anybody know what this place is?”
To Kill A Mockingbird: Read it, Don’t Watch it. Have you ever watched the movie adaptation of a book, only to find that the book is far superior to it’s movie counterpart? Oftentimes when a book is adapted into a movie, there are some differences between the two. Sometimes the differences are subtle, but other times the differences are dramatic and can affect the development of the story. An example of this is the movie adaptation of the novel To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee.
The movie was much more efficient for me because I am a slow reader and I do not do well with comprehending reading. The movie gave me a quick way of watching and understanding what was going on. It was much faster for me than reading the book. Although the book gave a good accurate presentation, the movie gave me a visual and factual presentation.
In Chamberlain's speech, "Why we Fight," Chamberlain utilized many rhetorical devices but pathos is the most powerful appeal due to the fact that it reminded the mutineers of the pride, hope, and fear of join the army into war. The mutineers who are exhausted are wanting to give up the fight because they did not see the possibility of winning the war. Chamberlain reminded the people of what they did so far and brings out their pride through his statement believing that, "we are an army out to set others free (Chamberlain 11)." Chamberlain's description of the army that the mutineers were in made them feel their importance in forming a free country. This becomes a moral boost which makes them truly believe that joining the army for a greater
So a lot of small details from the book have to be cut. Also the movie has to rearrange the events in the book in a way that it is interesting for the spectator to watch. Sometimes books jump in time and use different literary methods that have to be changed when adapted to movies because they can slow or interrupt the rhythm of the movie.