Film vs. Novel: What Makes Them Different?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 лис 2015
- Some film adaptations of novels become better than the novel. Some, no matter how good, can't capture the heart of the novel. Why? Let's look at the nature of the two art forms and what makes them different, or the same.
Check out my Patreon!
www.patreon.com/nowyouseeit?ty=h
Movies (in loose order):
Dumb and Dumber (1994)
Life of Pi (2012)
Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Fight Club (1999)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
As Good As It Gets (1997)
American Psycho (2000)
Superbad (2007)
The Hunger Games (2012)
The Great Gatsby (2013)
Fargo (1996)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Jaws (1975)
The Matrix (1999)
Music:
"Clint Eastwood" by Gorillaz
"The Catcher in the Rye" Pictures:
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/...
kristenmachina.deviantart.com/...
Actually, the great gatsby book mentions the lawn being redone and gatsby bringing a "greenhouse" with him (basically, lots of flowers). But you are right, and this is nothing more than a passing line.
this
You included Clint Eastwood. (the song) Gorillaz, I like.
that's so weird because in the video it has that ''rye'' thing and a dude side on with a cig in his mouth. similar to 2D on the cover of demon days no? then I realised clint eastwood was playing in the background... spooky1!
love your russel icon btw
yeah i was gonna say that too ahaha
I could barely concentrate on the content of the video because I was distracted by the music
Why is that and a lot of Gorillaz songs are used in a lot of Movie/TV Show etc. channels?
In The Great Gatsby novel, flowers do get delivered to Nick's house by Gatsby
Not that I liked the film much but, I have to disagree... 05:55 the movie doesn't make him look "cool" at all. I thought Leonardo made it very clear through his acting that the whole thing was just a show and a facade, I never had a doubt about how desperate and vacant the character was on the inside. I think the movie was very clear and honest about that.
+BlairSantos
Still, reaching out both hands and trembling and viewing further in the distance, would have just added more to that observation.
I thought that they protrayed Gatsby in the right light further and further as we went deeper into the movie. They paced it out differently than the book did in an effort to reveal those weaknesses rather than have it in our minds in between the action. The movie follows the orders of great story Pacing far better with it, while the book follows the orders of character development instead given its medium allows for it.
BlairSantos I
ODDBALL SOK reaching out both hands and trembling may sound good in the book, but it would have been way over the top for the movie. It would have been laughable. DiCaprio is an actor who interpreted Gatsby for the screen and knew how to do it right. He nailed the part.
DiCaprio nailed the part. His director didn't. This makes me sad because Leonardo DiCaprio playing Gatsby was the reason I showed up. The movie unfortunately gets dragged down by everything else, from Toby MacGuire's narration, to the miscasting of Daisy, to the focus on style rather than letting the substance breathe a bit, and the musical scoring that will almost immediately be dated instead of going with a soundtrack more in keeping with the 1920s.
I don't understand why The Great Gatsby movie adaptation was hated so much? I know that nothing could have conveyed emotion and described scenes or characters as well as Fitzgerald did, but personally, I thought the movie really captured the essence of Gatsby and how, even though he is some type of hero to Nick, he is pathetic and hollow.
And of course, Leo's acting was just amazing.
Better than the book imo
the movie was filmed horribly. it jump cuts every 3 seconds for no reason and it almost looks cartoonish. also toby maguire wasn’t a convincing nick
It looks as fake as Gatsby's life ,and i like that
Largely due to Nick’s character flaws being downplayed by the movie (his engagement to a girl out West being a throwaway line instead of an example of his unreliability and douchiness, him saying “I’m too poor” even though he’s actually from a quite wealthy family, etc)
I'm not sure I agree that they portrayed Gatsby wrong in the movie. Yes, they didn't underscore his weak side throughout, but they let it unfold more subtly. To me that conveyed exactly what the story wanted to tell, though in a slightly different manner. To me the movie was very thought provoking and moving and hit its mark perfectly.
I guess the movie wanted to first portray Gatsby like others saw him and then later cracked that image. You know, like to actually fool the viewer to make him personally attached to the notion, that things aren't always what they seem; that I got fooled now, with what else have I been fooled with?
The movie missed the entire point of gatsby's character.
In the book, Gatsby chasing daisy is symbolic of chasing the upper class, which is why his failure to win her over in the end is so tragic and representative of the death of the American dream.
In the book, almost none of that is there. Gatsby chasing daisy is conflicting with his ambition, not in line with it. He literally says in one scene, something to the point of "I want to move ever upward, daisy is the only thing stopping me from doing that." The movie had the idea of an ambitious man "in love", and therefore missed the entire point of the book.
Theo Cambel I don’t think it’s pretentious to try to discern authorial intent. “Death of the author” argues it’s misguided.
Hmmm I wonder where comics take place on this spectrum considering it can capture both novel aspects and movie aspects?
H.C.Brown
Oh hey, I like your art.
Dude im now addicted to your channel, its really good. I'm not really into movies or movie makeing but the way you describe stuff is just so good I can't stop watching.
Nice video. I agree that it's not realistic to expect a movie to be the same as the novel. Though there are good reasons for disliking the movie adaptation. For instance: Harry Potter. I don't mind if the movie is different, but what I do mind is if the movie doesn't do the characters justice.
Harry in the books is more intelligent than in the movies, is more of a natural leader, shows more confidence and takes more action. In the movies, I suspect they wanted to really exaggerate the dynamic of the trio: Harry is the hero, Ron is the comedic sidekick and Hermione the smart one. As a result, many intelligent ideas that Harry came up with went to Hermione and much of Ron's more serious side and Harry's humor were ignored. Many of the characters like Harry and Dumbledore for instance are completely out of character and are simply less than they are in the books. Less intelligent, less complex, in Dumbledore's case less kind and wise. That bothers me.
+Dion7 I agree with most of what you say. However, for Harry's leadership and confidence, you might want to remember the whole Dumbledore's Army scenes from HPatOotP the movie. I personally think at that point they may have overdone it.
Also, remembering the Harry Potter movies as a single series will probably lead to disappointment because the directors kept changing, so there were different people telling the story at different points. How movie Hermione's character changes is a very good exhibition of this. Christopher Columbus' Hermione was pretty much book Hermione, which was pretty much true for all his characters. Alphonso Cuaron's Hermione is a more impulsive and explosive Hermione than in the books. Mike Newell's Hermione was not given much thought (in my opinion), and was a very confusing and dynamic character. She initially became anti-Harry (for no particular reason other than to make Harry seem friend-less), and wasn't her usual grounded self. David Yates' Hermione in movie 5 is similar to that in movie 3, and after that resembles book Hermione more and more. At least the actions do, though as a character, Hermione in the last 4 movies is very unsteady. This lack of consistency results in no particular Hermione. Or a very confusing one.
+Dion7 Check out Nerdwriter1's video essay on Prisoner of Azkaban. He does a good job detailing why that movie did the best job of utilizing the strengths inherent in cinema to tell the story. Though none of the Harry Potter movies accurately capture ALL aspect of the books, I believe that movie did the best job of conveying the overall tone intended by Rowling.
I agree. The series perhaps could have benefited from waiting until the final book was released, but the demand to cash into the craze was too great! I really don't like how the film Ron is made to be so dumb at first. Ron isn't dumb, just extremely immature.
I wouldn't really say Ron is that immature, at least not for a child. I think of it more as being very insecure, which makes a lot of sense seing as he is the youngest boy in a family full of twins constantly trying to poke fun of him and using him as a guinea pig.
He's got an inferiority complex and a strong need to conform - and in that he's pretty normal.
I would say that only a third of the Harry Potter characters are treated with any dignity in the films. I still love the films though, but the books are way better.
I'll suggest not merely "slowing down', but leaving us room to feel as if we noticed your point by ourselves. You can see how those are EveryFrameaPainting's most successful moments, that go like this: 1-Tony says what we're supposed to look for in whatever he'll show, 2-He goes silent and lets the clip roll without his narration, 3-We arrive at the (same) conclusion (he said we would) and say "Wow, I noticed that".
Don't worry at all about "copying" if you choose to follow the same formula: that'd be impossible. *Your conclusions, your points* are what will always be unique, regardless of the way they're communicated.
Every video you make teaches me more and more things about how to analyze really what makes a scene and a movie good, hence the name "Now you see it" I assume. Great work keep it up.
I think this was one of your best videos! Very good aspects and examples! Perfect video essay
EXCELLENT JOB on this video. You really did a fantastic explanation! Loving this channel.
I'd argue novels show as well. It's not because they use words on the page that they are more telling than showing. Your example with Gatsby and the trembling hand in the novel was very much showing. The narrator didn't say "Gatsby was so shook jfc" but "I could see his hand trembling from a distance". That's showing isn't it?
I love your videos and I found the parallels you showed in this one between movies and novels really interesting. I don't think movies vs novels are show vs tell tho. The advice "show don't tell" is as valid for novels as for movies.
Khuthulun Hempstock Exactly. And btw show don't tell is a simplified advice. It depends on the structure and pacing of the story and other elements whether you use telling or showing (in a summary for example you would use telling rather than showing). I'd rather say the difference is often exterior and interior. Novels can show what a character feels inside by means of interior monologue and free indirect speech and it can play around with the narrator's voice and mix it with a character's point of view. A movie mostly has to show these things on the surface. However a novel can do this too as it doesn't have to show a character's motivations. It can reflect how much a narrator knows or chooses to reveal to deliberately guide or even manipulate the reader.
you have honestly one of the best youtube channels in my opinion as a film maker. Thank you for the many good and well thought videos
This video was actually really helpful as I've been thinking about adapting a book to a screenplay so thank you
i can't believe how amazing your channel is to any movie lover.
how much sense you make and how well you illustrate everything you say.
thank you.
brilliant video, never thought of it that way!
Really love your contents! Keep it up!
I'v read Great Gatsby and seen the movie. The adaptation was great.
I think both versions are pretty bad. It just doesn't have the ideas and visions of the novel.
Lewis Cranston I loved the novel. The movie communicated the ideas as well as a movie can.
Nice video, I really liked the example comparison between novel and film using Gatsby :)
Actually, the "movies show and books tell" statement is not always true. For example, take a look at American Psycho. Patrick Bateman's inner thoughts can be viewed through the protagonist's narration during some scenes. Movies can do what books do through narration.
I liked the video nevertheless as it is true that this statement applies to most of the movies that are based on novels. Great job! I subbed. :)
i guess sometimes in movies narration is considered a flaw. but i dont know why
@@briciolaayoutubers say it!,too
@@tawazu8425 ikr? almost every youtuber that does film reviews, i never got why though ahah
@@briciolaa because it's the most lazy and uninspired way to get information across. i just watched rear window by alfred hitchcock. the entire movie takes place in one apartment and so the majority of the movie is based around one characters inner thoughts, yet those thoughts are NEVER shown through narration. they instead come out through convincing and engaging dialogue he has with the people who visit him. this is way narration sucks, because the format of film gives you a million different ways to get information across, and narration is the worst due to previously mentioned reasons.
@@cheekybananaboy3361 gotcha, so its not like its bad on its own, however the movie medium gives you such a wide range of expression that narration would be reductive, uncreative and "flavorless".plus its less intrusive (like it doesnt break the 4th wall as much) if you use other methods, i would guess, right?
Great video. I had no problem following along, and it got me to think about novel adaptations differently.
English is not my mother's language so I have a hard time understanding things sometimes especially when the sound is too low like that last words of Keanu Reeves.
I've never watched the Matrix so I heard "I don't cook food" and wondered what was that movie about.
I would *love* to see an alternate version where Keanu Reeves dramatically says 'I don't cook food", and then he proves to Morpheus how shitty his cooking is inside their "Cooking Dojo" training simulation. And Morpheus be all like "COME ON! Stop *TRYING* to fillet it and just *FILLET IT!*
Oh
4:14 what film is this? I know I have seen it I cant remember what film it is though
good video and good music choice :)
haha love the end clip - works perfectly with what you said last
I have had the urge to say the exact same thing whenever the mediums gets compared. Also another fundamental difference that you only touched upon is that a Novel is almost always singular, there is one author and he realizes his vision through his own word. A film is plural, a collection of authors; actors, directors, writers, composers, technical staff and so on. The leading person, often the director realizes his vision through other people.
Another huge difference is temporal, because a film is action and action demands a time to be placed in, while thoughts and passivity is timeless.
Great video, I admire how you always have very clear examples of what you are talking about, makes it a lot easier to follow. Thanks
Great video, I've been thinking a lot about the different approaches lately so I'm glad I stumbled across this. The most frustrating adaptation(s) for me had a very similar problem to Gatsby. The novel "Solaris" is about the ultimate futility of trying to connect with aliens-- it's very focused on the interactions with the planet/aliens and humanity struggling to make sense of them and the cosmos. The movie adaptations are nice, but they concentrate on the polar opposite in my mind: the connections between people. The book wasn't about how if we can't understand ourselves we couldn't understand aliens or anything like that but that's where the movies take it. The book was about how we project ourselves and our expectations on our loved ones, other human races, and will probably do the same in many aspects of science including alien contact. Even the author has said neither movie got it right.
if the book how to train your Dragon was exactly translated into film it would have been boring as hell
The book and the movie are almost nothing alike.
That's okay, the movie had a much more interesting story imo.
the flowers are in the book as well as the movie. chapter 5 of the great Gatsby depicts the scene nearly identical to how it is in the movie
You can't go wrong with Gorillaz.
Damn! your channel is great, keep it up!!
Love your inclusion of Clint Eastwood in the background. Great stuff!
I love this channel so much
Having done my share of writing, reading and watching in different formats, here's my take on it: whatever your medium, you're prompting the audience to reconstruct something from your imagination. Choose well, and people will experience things vividly. Choose poorly, and they may not even have a clear inkling of what you originally intended. More than that, though, each medium has its own strengths in what it can make vivid. I think books are good at reconstructing things as memory, movies as direct experience. The key with movies is to get beyond the literal detail, get beyond the superficial appearance, and make the visuals hint at things beyond what the screen shows. Whether that's an internal emotion given away by the way a character thinks or acts, or some phenomena or event of which bits and pieces are shown to represent the whole, the key is to realize that nobody experiences everything in totality. We focus, we attend, we notice a select number of things, and one things leads to another as events develop around us.
The Great Gatsby novel has flowers: "...I drove into West Egg Village to search for her among soggy white-washed alleys and to buy some cups and lemons and flowers. The flowers were unnecessary, for at two o'clock a greenhouse arrived from Gatsby's, with innumerable receptacles to contain it."
I loved the film adaptation of The Great Gatsby, mainly because everything was almost EXACTLY as I pictured it in my head. While I don't think it's superb as a standalone movie per se, I think it's a perfect visual enhancer for anyone who's read the book. I watched it last year in school after reading the novel, and I was very pleased.
Took me a while to notice the back music is Clint Eastwood by Gorrillaz, nice choice!
The video was quality. One of your best analyses by far.
Great video, dude! I'm reading syd field's the foundations of screenwriting, and he says the same thing basically! And awesome soundtrack too, men!Keep up
you put a lot of focus on showing vs telling, but I actually think that one of the thinks books are better at is to not necessarily spelling everything out. It takes so much longer to read a book, you just get more information to interpret from, you also get to know the characters more-dimensional instead of just from a few sides (if done well), so you can just have way more complex stories
And I love movies for that! Not Information Dumping.
Hi, I have watched all of your vedios and I love them, great job, thank for macking these great vedios, they helps me to learn more about movies. I wonder would you add subtitles in your vedios, I think it will make it better, Thanks.
I think that the fireworks scene with Gatsby worked well translating the romanticised view Nick has of Gatsby
Listening to the background music, I wasn't happy, but I was feeling glad. Where did I put my sunshine? Oh, it's in a bag. I felt useless, but at least the future was coming on, coming on, coming on, coming on...
Neo-Mad Dog FINALLY SOMEONE LET ME OUTTA MY GAGE, YEAH TIME FOR ME IS NOTHING COS IM COUNTIN NO AGE
Sharky McShark Yeah i couldn't be there now you shouldn't be scared
..city’s breaking down on a camel’s back
FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS
What's the name of the movie at 0:51?
how many times do you watch a movie to begin to analyze it? how long did it take you to get there?
great video bro keep it
CONTINUE TO MAKE VIDEOS FOREVER MAN
How about a comic book? It shows and tells.
That's why I love comic books.
But, the skills in creating a comic book are completely different for books or movies. Your sense of time, pacing, and dimensions are completely thrown for a loop in the panel format, and it usually takes a much larger team to get a comic book made (usually at least one writer, penciler, inker, and editor) than it would for a novel (writer, editor).
Bullzye Comic books lack some of the key elements that make both a movie or a book interesting for me.
With movies it's 1)how realistic an actor can convey a characters emotions with facial expressions and body language, 2)the transition from scene to scene, for example a voice over that starts in one scene but belongs to the next, 3) or simply using certain camera angles, a camera movement alone can convey emotion or inform you about a situation, 4)Characters for me are very much defined not only by their looks, but by their voice (and body language) as well and you don't have that in a comic book.
As for books: yes, comic books have dialogue as well, but it's not as lengthy and elaborate as in a "normal" book. Describing feelings or situations and conveying emotion consequently seems to be much harder (or maybe I'm just not able to interpret it. Please educate me on that subject if anybody feels like that is the case.) I just feel like there's more to a character in a book than in a comic book. It just feels like they have more depth. And it's also much easier to slip into a characters mind if there's no fixed visual. One of the most interesting things about books for me is, that everybody can imagine its aspects differently. This is especially true for descriptions of people, places or situations in general.
All of these of are much harder/near impossible to accomplish in a comic book imo.
(I'm also not a big fan of the art styles used in most comics.)
little miss voice of a generation I get that comics aren't for everyone, but you might want to try "Understanding Comics," by Scott McCloud, if you're interested. It does an amazing job at explaining the medium, and I think it addresses most of your issues. I'm not sure if it'll change your opinions or anything, but it's still very informative all the same.
Eric Sheldahl Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out :)
You ever heard of Manga they're usually done by a single person
It would be really cool if you'd make a similar video but comparing film and video games. It would be considerably more difficult primarily because video games are in an experimental phase and no one really knows yet what really works and what doesn't. But you could definitely take some games that were adapted from film and find some interesting conclusions.
Excellent commentary.
I would love a similar video essay on the difference between comic books and film or tv. I think comics are an extremely specific medium and yet have a lot of range from horror to cape to comedy
Check it out my patreon and support Now You See It!
www.patreon.com/nowyouseeit?ty=h
Great video, once again!
Have you ever read 2001, by Arthur C. Clarke? It's an interesting example of novel vs. film as the book and screenplay were written simultaneously by Clarke and Kubrick together, so rather than either feeling like an adaptation of the other, they work as counterpoints, with the novel being extremely internal with character motivations and trains of thought, and the movie being practically a silent film, dazzling with visuals and sound, while the characters are rather bland externally, only inferring motivation through action.
Put together, they each tell half of the story by focusing exclusively on each medium's strengths, so rather than comparing the two, they enrich each other beautifully.
Is the background music to this video the same as the Gorillaz - Clint Eastwood background track?
Damn that sounds great, I didn't know about that. I think more artists should do things like that where one medium complements another and even adds depth to it.
Like the animation of Pink Floyd - The Wall
Hey! Excellent work! You've come a long way from your earlier videos. One specific thing I noticed is that you control your breath a lot better. Keep up the good work, Jack!
Thanks for including captions (do you speak norwegian or is that from someone else?)
Great video :D
Ok, I have to disagree with you, on the way Gatsby is being shown in the movie.
I haven't read the book, so the movie is my only reference... and yet, I saw him as a hollow, desperate man, only cool and "great" on the surface.
This doesn't come accross in the scene, where he raises his hand (but I don't think the movie wanted to make him look so uncontrolled in that scene), but there are plenty of moments in the movie, where I got exactly the impression you're describing here.
I don't know. Sometimes it's difficult to say, why something works for one person and not for another, but I experienced Gatsby in the movie pretty much the way you say he SHOULD look, but (in your eyes) doesn't.
I read the book and thought the movie version was a great adaptation. The interpretation was much different from what I gathered when I read the book but I actually liked the differences and felt that the main points of the story were effectively told. Told differently but told nonetheless
would a visual novel be a good middle between showing action with images/panels and the speech/though bubbles?
thank you for this
what was the movie at 4:20 ???
Man your work is great.
Thanks from Saudi Arabia.
You aren't giving the (Great Gatsby) film enough credit
+Max Nobel You wanna expound on that?
+Max Nobel
Actually, I disliked it.
At the time I was hyped to get to see it in cinemas, but couldnt thru busy schedules..later i saw it on DVD and found out I was glad I didnt go to the cinema.
Too predictable (and I didnt read the book), no surprising depths, just lame.
wtf is the point of comments like these when they don't bother elaborating
Actually Gatsby was the first great cinematic experience i had. When it came out i was 10 years old and watched it with my father. It got my eyes up to great film. Few experinces to this day can beat that one.
Love the matrix ending, cause it is such a good way to show your point. Lovely as always!
Can you make a vid comparing more types of media like comics, etc. to movies too?
The great gatsby movie didn't get it wrong, it was a different interpretation. Maybe they read it more from nicks perspective as he sees gatsby as this hero, but only comes to realize all these weak things about him as the story unfolds. Like a lot of your other videos, you show your own opinion as being the only one, that's not the only way to interpret the book, and you aren't the one who decides which way is right.
I'm totally with you. Having a different focus than the book, the film still shows all the nuances of the original story. I like to see the film as an illustration, improving, not substituting the original novel.
"Like a lot of your other videos", lol you mean like almost every person ever when they discuss their take cause on something. Imagine how inconvenient it would be to have to state that it's only your opinion every time you want to discuss these things. It's a given when you state any opinion that it's your interpretation only.
Leetle Seester Exactly. That's what art analysis is; it's never claiming to be the absolute interpretation, just one of many possible ones. It's okay to disagree with an interpretation, but not on the grounds that it merely didn't state the fact that it's "just" an interpretation.
viljamtheninja The poster of the video himself is basing his views on the idea that DiCaprio is interpreting the character exactly as he is in the novel. When DiCaprio does not do this he claims that DiCaprio got it wrong. It never seems to occur to the poster that an actor may interpret the character differently. If it did he would not have brought up the differences and think they are mistakes.
You'r video's are near to perfect!
One thing you missed is the beauty of great prose (e.g the final paragraph of The Great Gatsby) or its unfilmable complexity (e.g Naked Lunch)
What is the film at 0:43?
Was that song you used Clint Eastwood by the Gorillas?
yes
Why was any analysis absent between A.E.W Mason's "The Four Feathers" book, and Shekhar Kapur's "The Four Feathers" film?
I feel that most adaptations try to present an entire book in 2 hours and ruthlessly cut too much of what makes the books great. I strongly feel that book adaptations would be better being fleshed out in a way like Game of Thrones has done. Imagine if they made one more per book for the Ice and Fire Series....
+Eliot Okuhara Except that they gradually changed every storyline. The first 2 seasons are pretty close to the books, but the last 2 went in completely different ways. With George still writing th 6th book I understand that, but they're not close to the books anymore.
+Matthijs Krul I was more commenting on trying to "adapt" entire books into only 2 hour movies instead of giving them the time to go into depth that mirrors their source material. Imagine if they made the entire Game of Thrones series into a 2 hour movie and then they spoil everything in the trailer...
Could be worse, Warner Brothers wanted to turn Lord of the Rings in 1 2 hour movie. That must have been one fast paced flick.
Making Lord of the Rings a trilogy was great. Not so much for The Hobbit lol.
I think it would be a great idea to talk about the shining when discussing differences in between books and film. They are very different and I love both of them. But I still think the movie is better than the book because of the way it presents the ideas in the book with visions and clever camera angles.
If you are into it, a similar video but with videogames instead of Novel would be great. Thanks, your videos are awesome.
Although not a perfect adaptation, I believe The Great Gatsby has much to offer. With 90+ years between the present and the novel's setting, audience members are quick to consider the 1920s as stale, crusty history. The fact that Luhrman was able to convery the setting and period as vivid, energetic, dangerous and contemporary is no small feat to be ignored. He also succeeds in this with the tone and the pace throughout. His film is such a masterful spectacle that, in my opinion, whether he was successful at adapting much of the prose is moot because the areas where he does succeed, he knocks it out of the park. Thanks for the essay.
Do you have any thoughts you'd like to add on the difference a comic adaptation is? Just curious, great stuff!
Sometimes, film's comparative deficiency in thoughts is a good thing. I've read some books that were WAY too bogged down with what characters were thinking or talking about, I'm practically yelling "do something already!". Film cutting that down makes it much more palatable.
And then there's times where the position and/or movement of the camera makes it hard to follow along with what's going on in a movie whereas a book has it all laid out in plain text. Same with cues about the environment/set design we're supposed to pick up on in a movie that we're too busy paying attention to what the characters are doing and saying to notice.
It occurs to me though that those aren't so much exceptions of when one medium does the other one's job better so much as examples of when a medium does its own job poorly in a way the other is less vulnerable to.
Yo I was half distracted by the Gorillaz song in the background!
That's why it's satisfying when a movie does telling with emotions so well.
Good job.
I've found in a couple of screen adaptations that the loss of thoughts from the pov character(s) allowed me to better understand other characters.
In the first book of Game of Thrones I sided with the Starks a lot more and despised the Lanisters because you get in the Starks' heads. In the show, not having that emotional insight made me far more annoyed at some of the Starks. Meanwhile, since you're not seeing the Lanisters through the Starks' eyes it's easier to see that they do the bad things they do to protect those that they care about.
Ender's Game as a book had me far more outraged about Ender's abuse and isolation. I got almost none of that from the movie but when I read the book I was still so upset about Ender's treatment even at the end that the genocide of an entire species didn't affect me beyond the emotional damage it did to Ender. I was in Ender's head, so he was what I was concerned about. With the loss of that in the movie the most heart wrenching part became the genocide.
I like when adaptations use the loss inherent with a change in media to illuminate something you may have otherwise missed.
The guy with the goatee & long hair at 0:51 looks like Lewis Bond of Channel Criswell.
Nice thought process..
am I the only one who didn't hate the great gatsby movie?? I remember reading it before the movie came out and found it so boring, but once I saw the movie, I re-read it and found it fantastical and meaningful. I think the adaptation lacked in emotion, but aids in visuals when you read it again. For majority of people, they'd read the great gatsby in highschool, while they're young adults or teens who still long for the adventure of the hunger games or percy jackson yet want to see the politics/seriousness of ASOFAI. i think the great gatsby movie and novel allows those kids to have the best of both, and keep them interested - the movie giving fantastical visuals and the novel giving prolific symbolism of life lessons
I thought it did a great job visually. There were times I couldn't imagine what a scene in the book tried to describe but understood once I saw the movie.
YourPalAl As a guy who analysed and loved Gatsby to death in 11th grade English class right at the time the film came out, I didn't love or hate it. It didn't get everything right and the soundtrack was odd (to me) but it captured the story and how the American Dream is both hollow and hopeful in a unique way that I like overall.
Yeah, true. It had the same effect on me. Read the book and it bored me to tears. Watched the movie and suddenly enjoyed the book more.
I noticed the background music was clint Eastwood and gasped
You should make a part 2 where you explain animation, comics, novels, movies, and video games, and explain how they are all different.
Fantastic narration.
(thanking the stars nothings gotten taken down by 'fair use')
Holy crap, now you're using Clint Eastwood as your background song!
Does anybody have academic sources on this? The difference between mediums, I’m really fascinated by this concept
The Hunger Games movies are actually pretty good adaptations because of certain decision they made. No monologue which actually put the pressure to make Katniss a dynamic character (though she is fairly dynamic so maybe that wasn't too risky). As you mentioned, they did away with emotions which didnt have associated actions with them. And most of all they gave capital a point of view, they gave president snow a point of view (which he is why he feels so compelling in the movies). I was a happy fan!
Odd. Great Gatsby and A Clockwork Orange are two of my favorite novels, but I thought Kubrick's translation entirely missed the point, and the Gatsby film did a fine job.
I thought flowers were also delivered in the Great Gatsby book?
I like the background music.
It's a looped beat from the song Clint Eastwood by Gorillaz.
Good video as always, but I have to disagree about the Great Gatsby.
Surely the idea with Gatsby is that we should be seeing him as one thing, and then later find out that he's not as he seems. Take the scene where he's talking to Nick about setting up his "Date" with Daisy. He acts very nervous. And you kind of contradict yourself by giving another example from the film in the video on the actual meeting of the two of them, where you say his anxiety can be presented very clearly
Words and images work in a yin & yang like cycle; images are a visualization of certain word descriptions and words are used to actively describe some kind of visual outlook. Films and novels sort of operate the same way as films need to have a screenplay to get an idea of how it should look and an author needs to visualize an event unfolding in order to put it into words and draw readers in.
If someone reads the book before they watch the movie, they are inclined to like the book. If they watch the movie before the book, it’s the opposite, and they usually then like the book more than they would have if they never saw the movie.
I think this is because while reading a book, you create the characters, buildings, and landscape in your mind. If you watch the film adaption after the book, the film’s setting, cast, and scene design will undoubtedly conflict with your self-conceived ideas. However, if you watch the film before the book, you will imagine the characters and scenes as they were in the movie, avoiding the clash of imagination. Also, people like things they experienced earlier, similar to the psychological concept of ‘anchoring’.
I liked the count of Monte Cristo (2002) until I read the book and watched the Soviet version. I changed my opinion about the 2002 version and today I don't like it, but I love the book and the Soviet version.
ua-cam.com/video/RhAIGGGU8s4/v-deo.html
I see what transformed the story and how it ruined it.
My biggest issue with adaptations is when the order of scenes are changed, which changes the cause-and-effect of the original story, or important scenes are taken out or are shortened all to have longer scenes of some celebrity-of-the-moment just standing there dramatically.
In the book flowers are actually sent, says something like "a greenhouse was sent"
6:26 what movie is hat
That*
haha the very last scene you show, nice nice
I always like to use A Scanner Darkly as a decent book to film adaptation. A lot of people I know didn't like the animation but I like to think it was the permanent effect substance d had on the brain of the user. Yeah the movie left out some parts but for what it had I feel it conveyed the story relatively well as a movie.
So where would you say "Watchmen" stand on this spectrum? It was a seminal moment in graphic novels, was ho-hum as a movie and I can't see it doing well as a novel. Might be the perfect in between?
I think this sums up why I can never tell if I like 'FIGHT CLUB' as a book or a movie, thanks!