‘Harry Potter’, ‘The Northern Lights’, ‘The Boy In Striped Pyjamas’ and old classics like ‘Pride And Prejudice’ and ‘Jane Eyre’ have all been made into either a movie or a television programme. The question is, can the special effects and creditable acting in these motion pictures do justice to to the original peice of literature that they represent?

For example the famous book ‘Pride And Prejudice’ by Jane Austen has been made into a television series and a film, both of which contain undoubtably good performances and dramatic effects. However when one compares these with the original novel, it seems no matter how many dramatic features these motion pictures have they cannot quite compete to the same level. At least that is what alot of people beleive is true.

Why do they have to compete? So many people come out of the cinema having seen a book based movie and complain that “the movie definately wasn’t as good as the book” and that “the book was so much better than that”. But why does it have to be as good? Surely films and books are different and when a film bases itself on a particular book, it is just representing it, not being it. So when people complain that “the movie missed so much out” and “I don’t remember that being in the book” it doesn’t seem completely justified considering the fact that the film is simply a repesentation of a particular book.

By Community Correspondant Hannah Marsters