By Brett Swain |Staff writerThere have been many movie adaptations of books. "Into the Wild" is based on Joe Krakauer's book; "The Graduate" is based on Charles Webb's novel; and "Jaws" is based on Peter Benchley's novel. Movies have nearly every time changed the books’ plots and characters. The question is: Why do movies do this?I asked recent communication graduates Jeremiah Griffin and Ally Williams about their most memorable book-to-movie adaptations.“The main good example I think of is Harry Potter,” Griffin said. “The spirit of the books feels engrained into the films. It’s hard to describe, but so hard to get right in an adaptation.”The Harry Potter series is one of the most well-know movie adaptations from a book series. There are certainly changes that the movies have made, but they do honor the source material.Williams mentions "The Maze Runner" series as one where the films don't quite measure up to the novels.“The books are so great, and they make more sense than the movies do," she said. "They’re able to get more detail-wise, I guess.”Senior English major Jessica Wilkinson mentions the recently released "Artemis Fowl" movie.“When comparing the movie to the book, it's not even the same world or storyline," Wilkinson said. "There are aspects in the movie that are from the books, such as the fairy city of Haven and the use of trolls and time stops, but they have ruined almost every character in the series."Artemis Fowl is one of my favorite characters; he's a 12-year-old genius who is still young enough to believe in fairies. He's a character who likes to show off his brain and not his muscles. Holly is smart and sassy among being (a fairy), the first woman in the LEPrecon, which gets taken away by their choice to change Julius Root into a female. Root never gets mad like in the books and does not play as much of a role. Juliet has been aged down for no good reason when she was a teenager who was obsessed with wrestling. Foaly made me upset and angry as none of his character traits are there. He does not even seem to have any characteristics in the movie other than his aspect of being a centaur. And boy I was so mad about Butler. From the beginning, they change his character a lot as well. His whole role as Artemis's bodyguard is ruined as he barely protects Artemis. He's thrown around like nothing, unlike his book counterpart who carries all kinds of weapons with him all the time and dedicates his life to protecting Artemis through all his crazy adventures."The movie "Artemis Fowl," directed by Kenneth Branagh for Walt Disney Studios, basically took the book’s characters and gave them a completely new story. There were a few things story wise that was the same, but the changed how these characters were supposed to act that it made it laughable to watch. You laugh with a movie, not at it like Artemis Fowl."In short, this movie feels like some sort of awful fanfiction that tries to redeem Artemis as some sort of hero, not the antihero he eventually becomes. He does not get a chance to become the Artemis Fowl he ends up becoming in the end," Wilkinson said. "'Artemis Fowl' is a story about a boy who realizes life isn't all about being selfish. It's a story about growth and character growth, not love between a father and son, and not a young fairy looking for her father.”Former AU Professor Luis Antunes, who has two doctoral degrees in film, looked at how the book "The Suspect" compared to Clint Eastwood's film "Richard Jewell," a look at an Atlanta man who wrongfully was alleged to have done the Centennial Park bombing during the 1996 Olympics.“Eastwood is very faithful to all the details and facts concerning the story of Richard Jewell based on a book called 'The Suspect'; however, Eastwood also fictionalizes and imagines the motivations and emotions of the characters," Antunes says. "That kind of stuff usually can change how we perceive the facts. For instance, say we are talking about 'Dexter.' He is a killer, but he is a 'good' killer. We only know he is a 'good' killer because we understand his motivation to be doing the good (that is, to wipe out the bad guys). If we only knew the facts, Dexter would be evil. But since we know his motivations, he is a maybe not such an evil killer."The same thing applies to Richard Jewell. Although Eastwood is faithful to the facts, he fictionalizes the emotions and motivations of one of the main characters in the story (the journalist) and by doing so he attributes a certain judgment of her. This is stuff that can easily happen in adaptations to the screen. Film has a phenomenological capacity to make viewers evaluate the same facts in a positive or negative light. For instance, if I don't empathize with the actor in a film, I might not be able to see their character in good light no matter what the facts are. Similarly, the Kuleshove effect and other stylistic elements may give viewers a different judgment of characters and the same exact facts. For instance, if I record a close-up shot above the eye line versus below the eye line, I will be impressing a certain sense of power or powerlessness upon that character. Film has that capacity. Then there is also what film doesn't tell or include. Most often, readers complain that many facts in books are left out of films. That is just because of the nature of each of those media. One is more immediate, experiential and compressed. The other is more individual, extended in time and dependent on the reader's imagination.”Overall, movies have to tell the book’s story differently. There are so many things that the cinematographer and director have to look at from the book to make sure audiences can feel a certain way while watching a movie. Reading a book, the readers get to imagine what the setting and characters look like. Seeing someone’s interpterion on the big screen is not what every reader is expecting to see. Contact Brett Swain at bswain@augusta.edu.