7-2-i-Search-Grace

= Hollywood's Dilemma = by Grace

**Introduction**
I remember reading forum posts on 'imdb.com' under the movie "Twilight" that complained about how they hated the casting and were disgusted at how the movie was turning out so far. I had felt angry at those people because they expected the movie to be exactly how they imagined it; they didn't take into account that the movie can't appeal to every fan and that people had to actually work hard on the production of the movie. The protesting fans acted like a movie should be exactly like the book it was adapted from. They seemed to forget that fictional books are exactly that, //fiction//, and movies can't portray the book perfectly. The cast of a movie, for example, won't be what everyone imagined them to be. Fictional books have fictional characters. One thing that had bothered me a lot was how fans were criticizing Robert Pattinson, the actor chosen to be Edward Cullen in the movie "Twilight". They sent him hate mails that said that he wasn't capable of being Edward, that he shouldn't have been chosen. I thought to myself, "Complaints and hate mail won't change the casting, so why don't people just be supportive rather than rude and hurtful?" One movie that I was disappointed about was Eragon. The book was more than 500 pages, so the movie couldn't include all the minor details that led to the bigger conflicts.When I left the cinema, I felt that the movie was incomplete and wasn't thorough. This is one reason why I think turning books into movies is hard; you can't include all the details that make books interesting.

**Search**
Film adaptation is a precise art. Filmmakers have to capture the essence of the specific book in a visual movie. As easy as it may sound, well, it's not easy at all. During my research, I learned that one major problem when adapting a book into a film is that there is a limit to how long the movie can be. A novel is different, it can be as long as it needs to be. This is a problem because the movie can't include many details or events if it has a time limit. This results in the movie viewer having a feeling of incompleteness, and sometimes even confusion. Movies can't include all the events that lead up to bigger and more important events, so sometimes it's hard to understand why something happened. Movie directors and scriptwriters have to figure out what are the important details and what can be left out. If you discard one wrong thing, your entire movie could be ruined. I believe this creates a lot of pressure on the movie crew. They could be spending thousands of dollars and later it turns out their movie didn't make sense! They have to squeeze every necessary detail into a two-hour long movie that is needed to make the viewers understand the history of the characters (or something else) //along// with the dramatic and pulse-quickening scenes.

Another problem I found in book adaptation is that in novels, there could be flashbacks and events happening in different time periods. When put on screen, they could confuse the viewer since they might not know what time period each scene was in. I've known this to be very frustrating; I get confused a lot when there are too many flashbacks or too little. If there are too little, I usually don't understand why something happens. As a result, filmmakers and screenwriters have to use techniques such as a flashback, crosscut, or dissolve.

One thing I learned from a PBS website is that sometimes film writers alter the movie because they want to stress certain traits of a character or to be able to focus on new themes of the story. This is one reason fans should know. Film makers change parts of a movie because they want to make it more interesting; perhaps if they didn't alter things the movie would seem dull. What's worse: a dull movie or a movie that's exciting but isn't exactly like the book it was adapted from? I'd choose the dull movie. Fans have to realize that these people making the movies need to make sure their movie gets high ratings at the box office; they don't always strive towards making the movies identical to the books they came from. Plus, some changes are influenced by the fact that the filmmaker wants to make the original story more interesting, so they add more details and more drama to keep viewers entertained. Again this supports the fact that people would find a dull and boring movie worse than an not-so-identical-to-the-book exciting movie.

There are lots of ways to get confused during a movie adaptation. One of these ways is already discussed; the flashbacks and change in time period. Another way is when filmmakers try to get a characters thoughts onto the screen. They have to make sure it is clear to the viewers that what's coming out of the speakers is a character's thoughts, not their dialogue. One movie that I'm interested in, Twilight, is a lot about characters' thoughts. This is hard to portray on the screen because viewers might mistake a character's thoughts as speech or vice versa. I remember watching the movie 'Eragon ', after reading the book. I loved the book a lot; it was full of drama and anticipation. However, one thing I was disappointed about was the fact that it was hard for me to clearly distinguish the thoughts from dialogue.Eragon, a young boy, always conversed with his dragon, Saphira, using his thoughts. This created confusion. Another thing that creates confusion is determining a character's opinion about something. It isn't always clear. Either they have to say it out loud so all the viewers can hear, or the filmmakers have to maneuver the character into doing something, thinking something, or saying something that clearly states and supports what a character's point of view is.

On April 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm, I had an interview with Dr.Mandler, the 10th grade English teacher at BSGE. "What do you think is hard about adapting books into movies?" "All movies are interpretations of the book. It all depends on the screenwriter. Whatever his or her perspective is, that's what shows up on screen. The very nature of the book must be changed. The director also has to know which parts of the book are essential to the essence of the book. It all depends on thescreen writer's intentions." "What do you think is hard about casting?" "Well, actually, one of my friends is a casting director. I think the hardest part is getting a perfect match. Again, it also depends on the directors point of view. Whatever he or she perceives a character to look like, that's the kind of actor he or she tries to find. A casting director must know the essence of the character." "Many movie adaptations are highly criticized by fans. What do you think about this?" "I believe that if you go to the movies to see the book, you will be disappointed. First of all, there's time limitation. If a screenwriter had to include everything in a whole book, movies would last 10 hours." "To enjoy a movie more, do you think you should read the book first or after?" "It's not necessary to read the book. Besides, everyone sees different things in their minds. Things not in the book might even appear on screen. Plus, the time period changes. You could have a book that is written in the 1960s, and in 2008 it is made into a movie. It will appear different because life back then is different from now." "Do you have anything else to add about movie adaptations?" "Well, once there was this classic movie director named Alfred Hitchcock and on his wall was a cartoon. There were two goats talking to each other on a pasture. Both of the goats were chewing something; one of them was chewing grass like a regular goat, and the other was chewing film. The one chewing the film said, 'I liked the book better.' "

I believe that the most important problem of adapting a book into a film is this: it doesn't allow you to imagine what everything looks like and how an event is happening in your mind. According to a PBS website, this is one of the most frustrating problems viewers encounter. This explains why many fans were criticizing the cast of Twilight. I have read the book, and everything that had happened on each page conjured up vivid images in my mind. This book is very detailed, so I understand how angry fans must have felt when they saw the cast didn't look anything like what they imagined. This could be very disappointing since when fans watch the movie, they see someone else instead of the person they imagined playing the part their imaginary character had played in their heads. However, many movies adapted from books are actually pretty good, but when in comparison to the book it was based on, it was inaccurate and, as I have heard many people say, "a huge waste of my time and money!!"

**Conclusion**
From this research I did, I learned that it takes a lot of time and work to adapt a book into a movie. This new information I learned helped me gain a new insight on the movies adapted from books. I realized that not everyone has the ability to make movie adaptations since it takes a well experienced mind to know what exactly is needed to be taken out from the movie and what needs to be kept in. I also learned why many things have to be changed, taken out, or added. This helps me better appreciate movie adaptations, and I hope it will persuade other fans to appreciate and support the movies better. If someone (who didn't fully understand the concepts of making a movie) adapted a movie from a book, the whole movie would be ruined and he or she would probably be mobbed by millions of fans.

**Works Cited**
Tabita, Reena. "Adaptations From Book to Movie: It Was a Mook!" __Cinema & Literature__. 08 Oct. 2007. [|]

"Adaptation: From Novel to Film." __Pbs.Org__. [|"Adaptation: From Novel to Film." Pbs.Org. ]