One picture equal a thousand words? Is this really so. Your opinions.Thanks?

Question

The above is often quoted but if this is so,why is it so difficult to bring great Literary works to the screen. Can we really express with a few shots what needs so many words to express.

Answer 1

I think you could but it depends what the picture is. like if it was a picture of people starving and living in bad conditions in Africa, it tells you so much like how we need to help them and how bad there life is etc if you get me

Answer 2

Yes and no.



I went to the Scottish Highlands three years ago. It didn't matter how many pictures I took. I simply could not capture the power that stood before me on photo. The massiveness of those mountains, and the glorious sense of smallness that I felt standing at their "feet", could not be duplicated. I could only make you understand how I felt by having you stand in my shoes.



On the other hand, a picture CAN spark an imagination. It's like a fleeting glimpse of promise into someone's character, or personality, or timeline. Let's say you have, for example, a candid picture of a woman laughing at a child who is looking up at her. What does this imply? Love? Maternity? Maybe she is free-spirited or a child at heart, and they are captivated by each other.



So, you may not be able to experience the exact same feelings as the person who took the picture, but perhaps the picture can inspire new thoughts and imaginings in you. After all, interpretation is always subjective. Some pictures will inspire more words than others, depending on personal interpretation.



Bringing great literary works to the screen works for some people and doesn't work at all for others. Take the recent Harry Potter, for example. One of my friends was discouraged with the film after having read the book, because the film left out so many of the book's greatest details. My other friend thought the movie included just enough to imply that the book's details were still there. Everyone's interpretation of books is different, because we all build in our own minds what the character looks like/acts like, etc. When a picture breaks this interpretation, we are often devastated. The magic is broken. So in this case, a picture can be worth a thousand negative words.



I think it's so much easier to make a great movie out of short books. Take Lord of the Rings. Those books are relatively short, and yet very few have complained about lack of detail. Also...less people actually read the books than the Harry Potter books. A movie is always more appealing when you watch it before reading the book. You haven't created an opinion yet. :)

Answer 3

Most effective pictures have a lot of thought and meaning behind it, I'm currently reading the Da Vinci Code and it talks about the ideas behind Da Vinci's work, and it expresses a thousand words based on beliefs and feelings. But what words need space to express, paintings need time and effort. Both have advantages as they're easier for different people. So it depends on the picture.

Answer 4

I think the problem with bringing great literary works to the screen lies within the interpretation. Because stories rely on words to evoke images and feelings that are unique unto every reader, it's not easy for a director to make a whole group of people bring his interpretation of that story to life and furthermore, each cast member is interpreting his instructions differently and adding their own flare. A picture is worth a thousand words; get two poets to describe a single photograph and they'll tell two entirely different stories. We're all creating our own realities and none of them are going to coincide.

Answer 5

A description of something has a set meaning, with words. The author of a description is painting a specific picture with a specific meaning in mind for you to read about. Someone who paints leaves the painting up for interpertation. I think a lot of people like art BECAUSE they can interpert it how they will.