Comments by "Morgan King" (@MorganKing95) on "Top 10 Shocking Differences Between the Harry Potter Movies and Books" video.
-
13
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
JonatasAdoM
(WARNING: Long reply)
It depends. One factor is of course how accurate the adaptation is (I don't want a carbon copy, but the essence and key elements need to be there), but also how a style/genre work in one medium compared to another one.
Movies:
- I liked "The Godfather", "Marathon Man", "Leaving Las Vegas", and "Apocalypse Now" better as movies. That's because I like Mafia stories, thrillers, alcoholic themes, and war stories generally better as movies than books since they bring an aesthetic and suspense that books can't compete with, and because they often have suspenseful music to accompany them (The film "The Godfather" was also better trimmed and structured than the book, while "Apocalypse Now" took the essence of "Heart of Darkness" and turned it into something that became more intense). Environments can also often feel very stunning and beautiful in the moment they are shown because of aesthetics.
Books:
- On a general note, descriptions of the environment and the character's personality and feelings in books are often so poetic and artistic that it virtually sounds like a melody in the reader's head, and it's hard to adapt that to movies. Yes, movies can use music, visual effects, art direction, cinematography etc. to get the emotional feel, but I feel that it's more impressive to bring an emotional and artistic feel just through language. Describing the character's inner feelings and conflicts also generally works better in books than movies, especially when it's neo-Romantic and modernist novels like those of Knut Hamsun, James Joyce, and Franz Kafka.
Another advantage books often have is that they can be enjoyed on their own, but when the film is 100% accurate to them, it can get disappointing and predictable. Movies also generally ruin subjectivity by making the scenery presentation and character design in the film adaptation "official", while books allow creating your own pictures in your head.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nyx Nightmare
"Marathon Man" worked better as a movie in my opinion. Not because the novel is trash (on the contrary, it's wonderful), but because the movie is exactly the same with some very few exceptions (probably because William Goldman wrote the novel and the movie screenplay), so the film simply works better for me because of the aesthetics and because I find thrillers better as movies than novels.
"The Godfather" is a wonderful novel that I loved every page of, but the movie shortened it down in an effective way and didn't leave any imporant parts of. The film also wisely chose to put Vito Corleone's background in the sequel, and they shortened down Johnny Fontaine's story and many of the minor supporting characters. In addition, the baptism murders, Vito Corleone's conversation with Michael, and (SPOILER) Vito's death was handled slightly better in the film.
I haven't read "Leaving Las Vegas" enough to say too much about it, but I thought the film was more clear and focused, and again the aesthetics and especially the music and atmosphere are something you can't find in the novel.
I don't know if "Apocalypse Now" counts as an adaptation, but it's definitely more famed than "Heart of Darkness"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1