Novels are often adapted for films. However, they don't have as much quality as the originals (the reader plays with the imagination while the audience plays, basically, with images). It is not a matter of being better or worst: you're not limited reading a book while watching a movie you are.
For your consideration, you must have some things in mind: If you like to write snappy dialogue and you're good at coming up with funny scenes, you might have a good chance of writing for situation comedies. If you have a strong story, then you should write a novel (but it's hard work, particulary if you juggle a day job, social and familial oblitation ect).
The main difference between a work and an adaptation is that the adaptation is reformatting a work already done.
It doesn't matter which one you're better at, if you don't want to write a bad screenplay, you must be careful with some things: define scenes and make them indicate who is in it, where is it and what's happening. Your story has to have a point, a reason (in other words a topic or genre) and, finally, once you know what your story is about, you need to know the characters that are going to be on it.
Mainly, there have been theatre adaptations. You can practically watch every play of the tweenty century (there are even different versions).For example, Eugene O'Neill (Long day's journey into night) or Arthur Miller (Death of Salesman).
Concerning to books, these are some of the best movie adaptations of all time (my point of view, of course):
THE MOST FAITHFULFor your consideration, you must have some things in mind: If you like to write snappy dialogue and you're good at coming up with funny scenes, you might have a good chance of writing for situation comedies. If you have a strong story, then you should write a novel (but it's hard work, particulary if you juggle a day job, social and familial oblitation ect).
The main difference between a work and an adaptation is that the adaptation is reformatting a work already done.
It doesn't matter which one you're better at, if you don't want to write a bad screenplay, you must be careful with some things: define scenes and make them indicate who is in it, where is it and what's happening. Your story has to have a point, a reason (in other words a topic or genre) and, finally, once you know what your story is about, you need to know the characters that are going to be on it.
Mainly, there have been theatre adaptations. You can practically watch every play of the tweenty century (there are even different versions).For example, Eugene O'Neill (Long day's journey into night) or Arthur Miller (Death of Salesman).
Concerning to books, these are some of the best movie adaptations of all time (my point of view, of course):
"A Clockwork orange"
YEAR: 1971 DIRECTOR: STANLEY KUBRICK
NOVEL: ANTHONY BURGESS
A powerful work about the nature of humanity, society and other moral themes. None of this is lost in translation to screen in Stanley Kubrick's film.
This children's book is world wide known and it is really popular among kids because of its characters, the color and texture of the story. The film adaptation is, at least, as good as the book. [Arcade fire did an amazing job with the trailer--->]
BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL
"Fight club"
YEAR: 1999
"Fight club"
YEAR: 1999DIRECTOR: DAVID FINCHER
NOVEL: CHUCK PALAHNIUK
This movie had a huge impact on me: the way it looked, the performances and the Music. I liked the book, but I'd say I prefer the movie.
A MOST RECENT ONE
"Where the Wild things are"
YEAR: 2009
"Where the Wild things are"
YEAR: 2009DIRECTOR: SPIKE JONZE
NOVEL: MAURICE SENDAK
This children's book is world wide known and it is really popular among kids because of its characters, the color and texture of the story. The film adaptation is, at least, as good as the book. [Arcade fire did an amazing job with the trailer--->]
And here are some of the worst adaptations (again, my point of view):
NOT SO BAD
"Stardust"
YEAR: 2007
DIRECTOR: MATHEW VAUGHN
NOT SO BAD
"Stardust"
YEAR: 2007DIRECTOR: MATHEW VAUGHN
NOVEL: NEIL GAIMAN
It is not a bad movie. It is an entertaning film that grows apart from it's soul; forgets what makes the book and original and crystalline fairytale.
It is not a bad movie. It is an entertaning film that grows apart from it's soul; forgets what makes the book and original and crystalline fairytale.
A DIFFERENT STORY
"Stuart Little"
YEAR: 1999
"Stuart Little"
YEAR: 1999DIRECTOR: ROB MINKOFF
NOVEL: E.B. WHITE
1945 classic about the little child who happens to be three inches tall and look like a mouse changes the message in the film adaptations, making it less deep and more familiar.
A FAILURE
"I, Robot."
YEAR: 2004
1945 classic about the little child who happens to be three inches tall and look like a mouse changes the message in the film adaptations, making it less deep and more familiar.
A FAILURE
"I, Robot."
DIRECTOR: ALEX PROYAS
NOVEL: ISAAC ASIMOV
I like Will Smith. I do. But I LOVE Isaac Asimov. The story presents robots as psychologically complex creatures, rather than just machines which eventually turn on their creator. The depth and heart of the film is entirely manufactured and unearned, and it ultimately lacks the Asimov's stories' spirit.
Winter
No comments:
Post a Comment