Why do I think that movies produced from books (Anna Karenina,Dorian Grey) are bad - Essay Example

3 November The Downside of Film Adaptations From Harry Potter to Twilight; from Ana Karenina to Dorian Grey, film adaptations have become more than just hypes in the last few decades. They have become so prevalently sought-after and anticipated that movie producers are just becoming more pedantic at scouting for novels which could possibly make a billion dollar hit movie. Most of the films that are being produced nowadays are originally stories from text, particularly novels. For example, J.K.

Rowling’s Harry Potter novel series provided the story and partly the visual concepts of the Harry Potter movies, which earned billions of dollars in revenue worldwide. The process of converting a textual piece of art into some kind of motion picture requires a great deal of creativity and tedious conceptualization. Novels and films use different mediums in conveying the message to the readers for the novel, and to the viewers for the film adaptation. Nevertheless, and sometimes, the whole idea of film adaptation compromises several things.

Movies that are produced from books have more downside in so far as pure art is concerned. First, novels are typically lengthy and requires considerable amount of time to finish reading the whole text. Condensing it into a film would mean an exclusion of some possibly crucial parts of the story, which, as a result, could twist its overall thought. Normally, films last an hour and a [Student’s Last Name] 2half, or about 90 minutes for most Hollywood blockbuster films; hence, in an effort to fit the complete theme and the idea of the novel, scenes that do not really appeal so much to the audience will be omitted.

Second, the inspiration of every film adaptation is definitely not merely for art’s sake but ultimately for financial success’ sake. This is the sad truth about film adaptations in that before producers get started to invest in the adaptation rights of a novel, it is a given that the novel is viewed as something with a “bankable” story. Of course, producers would always look at the economic side of things. Nevertheless, talking about pure art and art alone, film adaptation is not the best option there is for a real artist.

Both cannot be consolidated at any point as both have very different afters: films would always go for profit; novels would always go for artistry. Because of the availability of both artworks – novels and film adaptations – people are also able to compare the quality and content of each piece of artwork. Oftentimes, because film adaptations use lavish graphic arts and visual effects, plus the inevitable tweak in the story, people are introduced into two completely different ideas of artwork with one origin.

Also, because film adaptations are easier to decipher than novels, which require a rather deep contextualizing and understanding, the story that is being adapted in films appeals more to the audience. Leo Tolstoy’s Ana Karenina which is considered to be one of the greatest ever to be written (Grossman, “The Ten Greatest Books of All Time”), was also adapted into film. The novel is unusually lengthy and the plot can be divided into eight parts. What makes the story great is the notions of each and every part of it – every word, phrase, interjections, etc.

But because of its length, some portions had to be omitted, which of course, changed the whole meaning of the story after being adapted into film. Hence, film adaptations do not really points toward any artistic motive but obviously aim for mere commercial success. Works CitedGrossman, Lev. “The 10 Greatest Books of All Time.” Time 15 January 2007. Print.