What is the difference between a book and a book turned into a movie? A movie does not have to follow the book in order or can completely change a scene. The movie industry can add or delete whatever they want from a book. So why do filmmakers chose to make movies off books? I think it’s a way to expand the story to viewers who normally don't read it. Books are usually more of the uncut extended edition than that of a movie version of the book. There really is no true movie that is extremely accurate to the book. A few have come close but yet hasn't been accomplished yet.
An autobiography of some sorts written by Chris Kyle, Tells the story of one man joining the seals as a sniper and his accomplishments throughout the military. Kyle talks about his personal life like marriage issues and PTSD. The book mainly takes place through out his deployments. We follow Kyle through his first confirmed kill to his longest distance kill up to his leave of the military. The film though cuts a lot of the material from the book and changes a few things like Kyle's longest confirmed kill. The movie really did change the book but yet is fairly its pretty close to the actual book. They added a few dramatic scenes into the movie to make it feel so much surreal. I personally enjoyed both the book and movie. I think that Bradley Cooper did an amazing job portraying Chris Kyle. After watching Kyle in interviews with Conan O'Brien, then watching Cooper portray Kyle I felt like I was watching the same person. All in all, I felt like Bradley Cooper and Clint Eastwood did an extraordinary job on bringing Kyle's story on to the big screen.
World War Z is a zombie horror survival book written by Max Brooks. The book is a terrifyingly amazing book,as you follow Max Brooks who goes all around the world interviewing different people to hear their stories of how they survived the the zombie apocalypse. With many amazing and horrific filled stories and interviews in the book.
The movie didn't live up to the books name at all. Brad Pitt stars as Gerry Lane a former United Nations Investigator who travels around the globe trying to find a cure for the zombie apocalypse. Directed by Marc Foster, World War Z really derailed away from the book. World War Z having no significant plot as the book and completely new character all with just not being a good movie at all, World War Z really let down their fans of the book. I think this movie was a quick cash grab. It was a summer blockbuster and did make some money, but it was just a horrifically bad movie after all. World War Z overall was the worst movie to ever be based off a book.
I have mixed feelings about movies based off books. On one hand they can bring the book to life, and make it feel more surreal. On the other it can be a horrid flop, that should have never been made. Personally, movies based on books is kinda like cheating as filmmakers are not creating their own plot, characters, setting. It really shows the lack of imagination now in Hollywood as everything is based off something. Either its a sequel or a remake or based off a toy there are very few imaginative movies that come out every year. I do feel like Hollywood is becoming a bit more creative as of last year some really creative and great movies came out such as Interstellar, Nightcrawler, The Equalizer and many more. I do enjoy movies based off other stuff but lets just hope that Hollywood gets better at making these movies better.