In 1975, Steven Spielberg took Peter Benchley’s Great White Monster and made him into the immortal, “Jaws,” we know and fear today. He took A-list actors on a big budget film, but still managed to have that B-movie monster charm. Our textbook Beyond Words, described text as being anything that conveys a thought or emotion. The book and movie both instill fear and a perpetual panic in their audience.
In Jaws, each member of the three-man shark hunting team had their own reason for killing the Great White. Hooper was a marine biologist and saw it as an exciting new project. Chief Brody was a police officer and was sworn to protect the beachgoers of Amity Island, but he was more focused on protecting his family. Captain Quint was a rugged WWII veteran who agreed to kill the shark not just for the bounty, but also for revenge.
Everyone can remember the explosive climax of Jaws. Chief Brody as the last man standing, leaning up against the mast of the sinking Orca, and armed only with an M1 Garand. Shot after shot misses the deadly beast that is cradling an explosive oxygen tank in its mouth. With one final round in the chamber, Chief Brody takes aim and utters the famous words, “Smile, you son of a,” and fires. The explosion takes the place of “bitch,” (because this is, of course, a PG movie) and Jaws’ headless body plummets into the deep blue sea.
However, in the book, as Jaws devours Captain Quint he is able to shoot the shark with a harpoon gun and the Captain and the shark slide off the deck of the Orca and into the depths below. Why was the ending changed?
Although these two texts insinuate the same overall theme, different texts communicate in different ways. For instance, in the novel by Peter Benchley, Captain Quint’s entire background is explained and is more or less centered on his hatred of the shark, much like Captain Ahab in Moby Dick. It is obvious to the reader that Quint wants Jaws dead more than anybody whereas the movie is focused almost entirely on Chief Brody. From watching the movie, the audience only hears Captain Quint’s monologue about the USS Indianapolis and how his comrades were eaten alive by sharks (oceanic white tips, not even great whites) once the ship was sunk.
The idea of revenge is not as clear in the movie as it is in the novel. Therefore, the poetic justice is not as present in the movie. The blockbuster needed a more audience-friendly “Hollywood” ending that would immortalize both texts forever, and that is exactly what Spielberg gave it.
Both the movie and the novel continue to terrify their viewers and readers today. As far as Beyond Words’ definition of the word, “text,” goes, I am living proof that these texts convey many thoughts and emotions. To this day, I cannot even get into a swimming pool alone without immediately jumping out of the water, and you will never catch me skinny dipping in the Pacific Ocean at night.
My question for the class is: In what ways do movies affect you that books cannot and vice versa? What is the difference between these two types of text? Please provide specific examples if possible.
I had never read Jaws and didn't even know the movie was based off of the book. To be fair I like movies that add subtle differences from the book. It makes it seem more interesting on how a different scenario can take place, or how characters can act that isn't included in the original text. For me the case with the popular animated TV show Naruto can explain this types of "filler" that can be entertaining (but not exactly necessary.) For the most part the filler in the TV show didn't really add to the actual story line that the Manga (Japanese comics) did. It added some sugar coating to the characters development as far as their psychological views and how they interact with one another on a daily basis. The filler wasn't really necessary but in most cases it was easier to identify the character with added episodes.
ReplyDeleteThe other show that provides significant differences was another animated show called Elfen Lied. In the case of this series the ending for both are completely different throwing many to pick sides on which ending was better. In my opinion both the TV show and the Manga series had very well structured endings. The Manga showed how love can conquer the pain in one's heart and in the Anime it left us with a cliff hanger so intense that it split the lovers of Elfen Lied into two sides. Both endings are different but like I said before it is always interesting to see how a series can add a different scenario to keep the audience on their feet.
With that said I am now going to enjoy another split end TV show simply known as Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Honestly, the only book whose movie I’ve seen is Twilight. I have read other novels such as Frankenstein, and Jane Eyre, but I have never watched their movies. To me, most of the times movies are strategically modified to satisfy the young public rather than to convey a theme. Movies are made to make money and to entertain the public rather than to teach a message. On the other hand, books often have many themes and stories to which a reader can connect to. For example, one of the many themes in one of my favorite novels, Frankenstein, is: who are we to create life? I believe that books allow us more opportunities to learn and analyze text compared to movies. Twilight the book might have taught me some things, but the movie was mere entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI have never really enjoyed going to the movies or even renting movies to watch at home however I love a good book. I love imagining all of the characters and how they look, act, and where they live while watching a movie allows your imagination to sit in idle. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, relaxing is always nice but when the story’s imagery is being created for you, you are forced to go along with it. I refuse to watch scary moves yet I will read a murder mystery or something along those lines because i can personalize the setting and plot without all the gore and violence which is right in front of me in a movie. I also enjoy the lack of Hollywood pizazz and deeper meanings which can be pulled from a book rather than a movie. I would much rather read and make the story my own than have someone make the story for me.
ReplyDeleteBooks take a lot of time to read, and movies from books are condensed into 90 minutes or so. I feel that books are more creative than movies because they give you the opportunity to create your own image of the scene. In movies they do that for you. Attention span is also another big issue for me. If I’m pulled into a movie or something really intrigues my interest, paying attention won’t be an issue. On the other hand books offer a more insightful experience. Reading an interesting book keeps your mind working and whether you know it or not increases your vocabulary extensively. Television and movies will rot your mind if taken advantage of.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between movies and books besides the media itself isn’t quite that different. Both are created to grab your attention and entertain the audience. Somebody who loves reading romantic novels is bound to love watching a drama related movie. Movies do sometimes add quite a lot more interest in people and in some cases people might not even realize that movies originated from a book. The major book and movie correlations that I have followed have been Harry Potter, Twilight series, Narnia, ect., I know I watched the movies before I started reading the books, but I feel that reading offers such a more relaxing outlet that movies do.
The movies in my eyes will never measure up to the books. Books have so much background and depth that it is too hard to convey into the movies. There are always those small details within the novel that are changed in the movie due the appeal of the general audience. However, movies have the pizazz that you imagine in your head as you are reading. The difference between the two is small, both are geared to grab your attention and entertain you. The Harry Potter series is one set of books I have followed all the way through and watched every movie at least three times. Although small details are missing or different in the movies than in the books, the movies bring alive all the imaginative details I could have never pictured. But, in the long run I will always pick the book, actually sitting down and reading the novel is enjoyable and relaxing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure how to comment on the above. I think that this an interesting look into how a director can take something so rich in content and change things to make it pleasing for a viewing audience. I think this is very similar in a childhood favorite series of mine, "A Series of Unfortunate Events." The books were, at the time, very interesting to me and full of outlandish environments and events that could never happen to a real person. Then the movie came out and it had the making to be very good in terms of actors and the directors reputation; although that was not the case. They took the first three books and creamed them into one throwing out a lot of the details and dialogue that made the books so interesting to read. This is just my simple input on the subject.
ReplyDeleteI definitely enjoy reading but I can say that i love when books i've read are turned into books. Many people can disagree because they feel that the value of the book is being compromised because Hollywood is turning their favorite books into movies. I really enjoy reading because I can create while reading. I can imagine what all the people look like and with the author's guidance i can imagine the setting but put my own twist on it. I can understand why people do not like when books are turned into movies because many of the important parts of books have to be compromised in order to fit it into an appropriate movie. Sometimes books convey emotions better than movies. In books we can really get inside the character's heads while in movies we can't as easily. This being said, I do enjoy when books are turned into movies because I love seeing what I read come to life.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy both books and movies. With that said, I think that some books should stay as books and not be made into movies. A perfect example is the book 'The Count of Monte Cristo'. The plot is so complex and so full of twists and unexpected events, that it is just too much to crumple up into a 2 hour movie (the film adaptation of this book is actually terrible). Movies are meant to entertain a general audience. They're made to appeal to almost anyone, no matter what their intellectual capability is. Movies with a myriad of special effects draw the viewer's attention and make the story interesting and realistic. Books have a more personal feel to it. Readers usually find ways to relate to the characters since books tend to be more descriptive and give you more freedom when it comes to interpreting or imagining the plot, scene, characters, etc.
ReplyDeleteI truthfully do not read many books and I am more likely to go see the movie if i had to choose between the two. However I believe books allow you to use your own imagination and are more detailed and in depth.
ReplyDeleteMovies are easier and quicker to portray the story but in turn lose detail and material in order to fit in to a one to two hour time slot. Movies are more visually interesting than books, but a good book's storyline is better than even some of the best film storylines.
I have seen the movie “Jaws” millions of times but never knew the film was actually based off of a book. I know for a fact that when it comes to horror or suspense novels I get more out of the movie version because I don’t get scared reading. An example would be the Stephen King novels such as “It”, or “Misery.” The movie versions of these stories were much more terrifying than the actual novel. However when it comes to novels that like Harry Potter, which I am a huge fan of, I do think the books have more to offer than the movies. Although the movies are done really well, the books have so much more information about the plot, scenes, and especially the characters. The book gives a lot of background information on even the most unimportant characters so that the book seems more real in the way the characters interact and behave. The movie adaptations never have all the information necessary to truly understand the story because it is impossible to explain a nine hundred-page novel in just over two hours.
ReplyDeleteMovies affect me in a different way than books by giving me an alternative senario or version of the idea that I am reading about. When I read a book, I imagine what is being described in the book - it is like my own personal movie with my own actors. As for movies, the story is being actored out in reality so there is not as much that is left up to your mind. However, if you read a book before you watch the movie, you are able to see a different version of the book that you may not think of since the movie is an interpretation of the director's idea of the story. This happens in all novels turned movie. For example, in the Harry Potter series, I did not imagine the same physical layout and characteristics as the movie portrayed.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the difference between movies and books are the amount of time and space an audience will give the media in order for the story to be presented. A book allows an author to explain in detail and however long it takes for the ideas to transpire into a story whereas an audience most likely won't watch a movie for days straight. An audience is able to put down and pick up a book anytime they want and they are not able to do this as easily as a movie without losing some information.
I feel as though movies and books are entirely different, even when inspired by one another. Movies can include things that books cant such as music to make things more dramatic, while books can see into ones thoughts when movies can only use visuals to see what ones thinking. Books can also give a more detailed story while movies often dont include everything that the book does. Regardless they are both very enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteBeing a Harry Potter fan I have read every book and seen every movie. I have to agree with most of my classmates, the movies never compare to the book. There are always so many more details put into a book. However movies help you see the characters and the events in action. I love reading the books and watching the movies because you are seeign the story unfold from two angles, the writers and the directors.
ReplyDeleteNever having read Jaws in its original book form, I was never able to make such a comparison of Jaws presented in two different types of media. I remember watching the movie with my brother when we were young; I can even remember the only part that truly frightened us was when, underwater, the severed head rolled out from behind a reef in the beginning of the movie! Without reading the book, one can still note a major part of the movie that can capture us as viewers, but not as readers: the theme song. Who can for get that repetitive "dadum," getting faster and faster as the shark gets closer...?
ReplyDeleteI cannot agree with some of my classmates; is the book really generally better than the movie? Better on what terms? Yes, it surely contains more adjectives and definitely has more intricate, descriptive sentences. However, can it make you squirm like the movie's classic "dadum dadum?"
I just recently read The Hunger Games trilogy, and anyone who knows me can back up that I've been almost unreachable since I started the series. I couldn't put the books down. The first movie of the trilogy comes out on March 23rd... needless to say, I'm itching to see it. Will it meet my expectations? I don't think any movie can possibly include all that a book includes, however I feel that movies provide us with another source of enjoyment. Not one form of media is better than the other. Books can reach the innermost of your thoughts, but can't movies do the same? I think it is all a personal preference... I welcome both the book and the movie versions, and I consider them to both aid my view of the story.
I think Books and movies each have their own ways of affecting people. The majority of the time a book will be written before a movie is made about it. This means that most people will have already read a book and will have come up with their own images of what is taking place in the book. Then when they watch the movie version of the book that they read they get to compare the images in the movie to their images and can see how close or how far off they were when imagining what was going on in the book. Movies are usually more exciting and entertaining because they let people see a real life version of things and are more graphic.
ReplyDeleteHowever, books give a more detailed description of what is taking place. They will tell you how a character in a book is feeling, or what they are thinking. Also, books incourage the use of a readers imagination. They allow readers to come up with endless ideas of the appearences of people and places that are talked about in different books. Even though both books and movies can offer me entertainment, I usually will go with the movie version.
Both books and movies captivate me. Never have I found a movie that is better than the book though. Being an avid harry potter and lord of the rings fan I can vouch that the movies do not do the books justice. While I enjoy watching the movies the books are much better. The books include so much more detail and many more scenes than the can fit into a 90-minute movie. That is the downfall for books though. Where I can sit down and get the entire plot in 90 minutes or I could read a book over the course of a few days.
ReplyDeleteBooks and movies affect the mind in different ways. When reading, the reader has the ability to imagine for theirself what is happening and the world that is created by the text. Text gives the imagination the chance to create a place that is far beyond what a movie can produce. Movies put it all on the table, nothing is left up for personal decision. Movies may be able to pull emotional and intellectual extremes from the audience, but they have no choice over what they are viewing. I feel that text gives the reader the chance to create the world and story in their mind that is much more exciting and fantastical than anything a movie can provide.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy movies and books both equally for very different reasons. We all know books give you the freedom to imagine and create your own perfect vision. Movies, while they don't give that freedom, gives you a chance to enter into a world of seeing instead of visualizing. When a movie is done well, it is captivating. It is simply showing another's vision or imagination. While I enjoy both, when combined, it is a disaster. It is apparent that when you read a book before seeing a movie version, you will be disappointed. And when you see the movie before reading the book, it is impossible to enter into your own imagination when someone has already created the world for you. In my personal opinion, they should remain separate. The communication in a book is opposite of the communication movies give. Unfortunately, in this case, opposites just don't attract.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I hate reading. On the other end, i love watching movies! Movies though do not capture the emotion a book can for some reason even though it provide. Even though I do not pick up a new book every week, I try to read books that already have movies made or are in the making so I can compare them. I enjoy the books more usually because they are able to apply more in-depth detail because there is no time limit on a book like there are for movies! I recently read the book "Something Borrowed" and I loved it! Then the movie cam out which I also enjoyed, but I noticed they left out parts and changed some to make it more suitable for the movie audience. Overall, movies and books communicate the story in two completely different ways.
ReplyDeleteMore often than not, books provide a much more rewarding experience than their film counterparts. Not to say that all movies don’t provide a rewarding experience, but there is something to be said for the amount of personal detail and effort found in a book rather than a blockbuster film. If you are not a credible director, and often even if you are, you find people will have their way with whatever film you’re working on. Right now, I’m writing a book myself. If I was given the chance to instead make it into a movie, I don’t think I would. Books make it easier for the author to write without constraints. You can explain yourself in full, even if that means writing a monolog, which in movies tend to be frowned upon. That makes sense though considering movies are generally temporary entertainment. Overall, I think movies are a wonderful medium for stories and artists to convey messages. But as an author, I would never write a script for anything other than profit because of the previously stated complications.
ReplyDeleteMovies, in a way are more effective then books because the viewers are able to actually see the action take place. Movies allow the viewer to put a face and voice to characters that they could have only imagined previously. I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and I saw the movie. The book included details that were brought to life within the movie and were graphically depicted.
ReplyDeleteMovies have always provided instant action no matter what type of movie it may be. Books tend to make your mind create the scene in stead of instant like a movie would. Hearing from friends Harry potter books bring more detail and surroundings then the movies do. Even though the movies are great they only give the instant action the book cannot provide to catch your direct attention.
ReplyDeleteHaving read most of the Harry Potter series as well as watching all of the movies, it is clear to see that the amount of detail in the movies could never match up to the amount found in the book. The size of each of the books alone makes it impossible for any movie to hold every detail. Although the books provide deeper depth into the plot of the story, I sometimes get confused because of the amount of detail. The movies, on the other hand allow me to grasp a better understanding of some details that I may have not understood from the book. For example, in the last Harry Potter book, I was very confused at what was happening with the flashbacks that Harry was having. Watching the movie, it helped me understand that every previous movie and book was linked somehow with the ultimate ending of the book. For the more "visual learners," such as myself, movies tell the story of a book from a different perspective where they don't have to sit down and absorb hundreds of thousands of words to enjoy.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I think that movies are changed from the books soley to gain a genre of audiences and they change certain parts to make it more interesting. Reading affects me in different ways because I get to visualize and create my own sights for the book but in a movie its given to me. A lot of friends tell me that the Twilight books have 10 times the detail that the movie has. Seems to me books win in almost every category.
ReplyDeleteBooks and movies all have their advantages and disadvantages. Movies are good for adventurous and epic novels that have a lot of grandiose scenery in them. These movies are beneficial because it’s faster to get through and it makes the audience understand and absorb the landscape that the author tried so hard to explain in words. However, there are two main downfalls to movies. The first one would be inaccuracy. Directors and producers think that the people who read the book will want some unexpected twists and turns so that the movie isn’t predictable and humdrum. In reality, most people watch movies in order to bring the book to life, not to change it. Another problem with movies is that they are unable to capture a characters thought. A protagonist will usually reveal more about themselves in their thoughts than their words and sometimes even their actions.
ReplyDeleteMovies seem to almost verify the authenticity of the novel. For most people, myself included, movie’s seem to have more power over my emotions than my imagination. For example, in high school I had to read a story Left to Tell. It was a personal account about a woman who survived the Rwandan genocide. The book was very interesting to me and it was full of suspense, but I didn’t feel like I was there and I didn’t feel like the book was as powerful because I didn’t see anything actually in front of me besides text. However, once I saw Hotel Rwanda, my whole perspective changed. I was able to see images on the screen that disturbed me and gave me goose-bumps and I experienced emotions that I didn’t while reading the book. I was able to see the fear on the Totsi’s faces and I felt like my face reflected that same fear and when they knew that Hutu’s were coming, I felt my heart rate picking up and my breathing to be shallow. I never experienced these things while reading because the words didn’t necessarily make me feel like I was there. Rwandan landscape and culture was foreign to me so I couldn’t exactly use an accurate imagination. However, when I am familiar with the setting and the plot, it’s much easier for me to imagine what it was like there and the books then become more influential than the movies.
Another example would be the movie Bright Star. I had always liked the poetry of John Keats, and I had known about his life for a while. I had a read a book about his life and his tragic death and a horribly young age of 27. I read about his love for Fanny Browne, who he could never marry because his lack of money, sickness death had cut their relationship short. Even though I had read these books and read his poetry, I still didn’t feel particularly sad at his death. It was tragic, yes, but to me, this seemed normal during the time when Keats was alive. However when I saw the movie Bright Star and I saw how much his relationship was Fanny was developed and who tragic his death really was, it moved me to tears.
I think movies and books are beneficial for different things. If someone has a great imagination, even for things that they’re unfamiliar with, than books are probably better for them. People who aren’t good with their imagination and would rather becomes engrossed by emotion, movies are probably better. Or for people who are like me who like a good balance between emotion and imagination, they’ll just read the books and watch the movies so get both sides of the story in order to get a deeper meaning to what they’ve just read.
I am not a big fan of reading and I don't do it very often. I haven't read that many books, and I never watched a movie about a book I read. But when I think about it I would imagine that when reading a book someone could really use his imagination more than when he watches a movie. When you read you can picture things a certain way, but in a movie everything is being pictured for you. From what I hear from others the books mostly are much better than the movies. I however am a little lazy so I won't be reading a book easily, and won't get to the point where I can compore it to the movie.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I feel that by watching a movie you get to see and hear the details portrayed and brought to life for you, while when reading a book you are able to imagine these details in your head and picture the scenarios as it is being described. I believe that a movie will never capture the description of thoughts and feelings that a book can convey. An actor can portray fear, sadness or inner conflicts to a certain degree, but by reading it you can somehow understand it or at least imagine it for yourself more in depth. Movies leave out a lot of details that are written in novels primarily because of time.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it is clear that books and movies are two different art forms. Movies can sum up a novel in about 2 hours by capturing the story’s important details and bringing them to life. Sometimes when I read books, I feel that there are so many details I just want to get to the point, but on the other hand, there are movies that don't do the book justice. I tried reading the Harry Potter Series and I just could not get into the story, but when the movie came out I can honestly say I enjoyed it a lot.
Other than the content, books and movies are similar in one sense; books try to lure you with their cover and brief summary while movies try to grab your attention with trailers and posters. They both try to get the audiences attention for sales. Personally, I am more of a movie person, I can watch a hundred movies and not get bored, but I can pick up a book and not get captivated.
Okay first of all I do not like reading. If there is a both a movie and a book, I majority of the time pick the movie. However, the book is normally better than the movie because the book has more details and goes in depth. For instance, I read the book The Lonely Bones and it was amazing. I saw the movie and I was so disappointed!! The images I pictured in my head while reading did not the movie at all. One big difference I think with the text of both movie and book, is that movies pull in younger audiences. Movies have trailers unlike books. You see an awesome movie trailer and you're like "OMG, I wanna see that movie ASAP!" Not many people jump out of their seats about the newest book coming out unless you're a fan of the author then that's a different story. I guess you can get different perspectives from watching a movie that is a book. A movie can help clear up some questions sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI happen to enjoy both books and movies. With books, one can experience a very detailed and much more personal form of a story. Books allow one in some cases to know the thoughts of characters in the story providing multiple views of the same situation. In the case of movies, one can be better provided with the scenery of a story that may have been difficult to grasp in the book. An example for me would be Harry Potter. I never could picture a school for wizards until I saw the movies. Movies also provide for much more detailed and exciting action sequences.
ReplyDeleteI also do not read that many books that come out into movies. However, I believe that the book gives you much more detail and a great sense of imagination than the movie. I am more of a visual kind of person so therefore the movie really grabs my attention but "Hollywood" often leaves great detail out of the book that one doesn't see in the actual movie.
ReplyDeleteBooks allow you to create your own characters; how they look, the tone of their voices, and the clothes they wear. Movies on the other hand are someone’s interpretation of that character. Actually, it is more like an adaptation of how a director sees a character because in fact directors pick already existing people as the actors who play the part. Movies give you the auditory and visual sensations right there; there is no need to imagine them. Books, on the other hand, describe through the use of diction to what extent the author wants a certain description to be and the rest is up to us. Books such as Lord of the Flies, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Help, Wuthering Heights, Romeo and Juliet, and many other books have been made into movies, but as stated neither will ever be identical since we each have a different perception and vision of certain things we read. Also, sometimes movies need to change some of the story in order to make a movie that is not eighteen hours long or cost millions and millions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteI know this may be redundant, but as many people have stated before, I feel as if movies leave out a considerable detailed portion of the story as compared to its book counter-part. Is this maybe because books are made into movies instead of movies being made into books? We can all argue the same thing, but when it comes to a book reading audience compared to the average movie-goer audience, the book reading audience may not mind the vast amount of detail and imagery that is portrayed throughout a book; as for the movie-goers out there, a long detailed movie might be the farthest thing from their minds when watching the film.
ReplyDeleteI never read the Jaws novel, however I did watch the movie as a child and ride the ride at universal before the park closed it down. The ending of the movie and the center piece of the police chief was much more relatable and entertaining than if Spielberg had focused on the revenge factor. Spielberg must have known that his audience could relate more to a family man than a war traumatized fishing boat captain out for revenge. The ending was also giving the audience what they wanted to see. This big shark was a big problem, which needed to go out in a big way. Blowing up the shark from on top of the sinking ship was much more dramatic than watching the fishing boat Capitan slowly sink with it to Davy Jones locker.
ReplyDeleteFor me movies are much more emotional than books are just because you can actually see the actors emotions. In a book you have to visualize it and if the text isn't written well than sometimes you just can't visualize a scene. Look at the movie Saving Private Ryan. It would be extremely hard to write that story in the detail that the movie gives. Such scenes as when they storm normandy beach just can't be viewed in the vivid detail that the movie shows. The difference between a movie text and a written text are the way that everything is (for the lack of a better word) portrayed. Just as you said with the Jaws movie and book, the story is slightly changed due the fact that some things just wouldn't "look" good if it were written or if it were on film. There are things that you can film that you can't get through written text. Many people will disagree with this, but here's an example. Watch a documentary of live footage from soldiers in Iraq and the real emotions that they have throughout the day, ect. It is so much more real than if it were written. You just can't get the real life emotions out of text that you can with film.
ReplyDeleteI think that both movies and books can be emotional depending on the details and how well the story written or acted out. There are some cases in which a book is way more emotional than the movie, and vice versa. I know the following example is horrible and will cause you guys to judge me because of it, but whatever. The Twilight book series and movies show how different things can be portrayed just by changing the way they are explained. For me, the books were more emotional. I could imagine the characters and the way they acted and felt. But the movies were honestly complete shit. The story line is extremely similar but the way the actors portray the story is horrible. They are awkward and every movie just seems like a joke. The story's emotions are stronger and easier to understand in the book, than in the movie. To me, books will always be better than movies. The way scenes are described in books are more powerful. And it gives you the freedom to interpret the characters and events in ways that no one else would. Of course there are times when movies show a story better than a book would but its pretty rare in my eyes. I believe that it all has to do with the way your brain interprets things. Some people need visuals to understand emotions and others don't. There is no right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteWith movies, visualization is readily available: setting is shown, chapters flow even more together, and emotions are seen. The problem is – for me, at least – that movies usually get everything wrong. When able to read the book, one is able to set up the perfect scene for themselves based on their own interpretation. When reading, the characters become more personal – almost real, since the pictures are made up solely for personal preference. When reading, there is not one actor that everyone must take as the truth – there is simply the power and imagination of the individual mind. As Lindsey Furrow said in a comment before: “I would much rather read and make the story my own than have someone make the story for me.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think you can fairly compare books to movies. Books allow us to freely imagine a story how we would perceive it, while a movie shows the story from the director’s point of view. It is clear that some movies radically alter the storyline of books, such as in Jaws and in remakes of Romeo and Juliet, in order to build a relationship with a character or alter another. With written text in books readers can easily build these relationships as they create their own images of the characters. Both mediums of text connect you to the characters but with books it is much easier, so dramatic changes are not needed for the author as much as for a director.
ReplyDeleteI have never read the book that Jaws was based off of so I can not compare the two, but I did the read the Series of Unfourtunate Events books and then they made a movie about it and I could immediately feel the difference between the two. In most movie based off books they seem to make the big parts of the book even bigger and cut out a lot of the little details that makes the book so good in the first place. Very rarely do you see a movie that doesn't ruin the greatness of the book
ReplyDelete