Kody and in turn Frank talk about to change of books into motion pictures and how they differ, with motion pictures usually leaving out key elements of the books they are based off of. Frank and Kody brought up the Harry Potter franchise of both the books and the motion pictures, stating that there are notable differences between the two. I personally have only seen the first 4 movies, and only read the first book and I was able to pick out differences between the two takes on it. I cannot remember the differences, but I know, like everyone that there was bound to be differences because books are able to be as long as they need to be, and have every little detail an author wants, while a movie has a time constraint due to money.
A book/novel can be thousands upon thousands of pages if an author so pleases, but a motion picture can only be so long because of how money plays into the equation. Due to this constraint a director has to pick and choose which parts to keep and which parts to not use, what details to keep and what details can hopefully be implied or simply were not important enough (in the director’s eyes) to keep. The director also needs to keep in mind of what an audience wants to see, what will keep the audiences attention. Time has shown that as Frank and Kody have said, that an audience wants to see action, any action that can be filled in. These action sequences will keep the audience on their toes and in turn keep their attention. Authors can put in all dialogue with a few built up action scenes, with key details insisting on the upcoming climax with dialogue filled with hidden meanings and metaphors. Directors need less dialogue with more action scenes, so as Harry Potter fanatics have told me, many parts have been switched in the last six films to make the motion picture more exciting and to keep you on the edge of your seats. Scenes have been taken out from the translation of paper to film because of lack of interest.
Motion pictures like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, which are three hours long apiece, are able to keep in more of the detail and dialogue of the books because of the length of the film. I have read The Hobbit through The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and have seen all three movies and can see how close to the text the directors tried to keep it. The motion pictures due have a lot of dialogue like the novels, but also have their slight twists in the plot, along with keeping the numerous plot lines within the movies, which in the end all unite for one ultimate and (in my opinion) a fantastic conclusion. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a shining example of book to movie that has done a good job of keeping to the original concept in terms of details. Again, due to the unusual length of the motion picture, has The Lord of the Rings been able to due this.
Due to change from book to motion picture, books have been able to retain their mass popularity because of having details and additional characters and story plots than their movie counterpart. Movies also have a notorious reputation of taking two different characters and blending them into one single character, and that character sometimes takes the name of only one of the characters, or even has his own name, and only shares the traits and some back story of the original characters it was based off of. With all of this possible confusion and lack of certain/key details within movies, it can be seen as to why many choose the original books and tend to enjoy reading them than viewing the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment