Since I am a writer, I'd better damn well think of books as relevant, otherwise I've chosen the wrong calling in life. Or, to put that another way, I do seriously find books to be relevant, as there are still these things called libraries and bookstores. Quaint little things, I know, but here's a kicker for ya. Not everything can be done electronically. If I sell a story for a million bucks and it ends up in digital media, fine. But it's still a story and story implies pages. And not every corner of the world or even just the United States has easy access you games, DVDs, and what-have-you. A lack of decent stores can occur with limited availability of the various entertainment sectors.
Now, onto the point of books themselves. Let's compare them with their movie counterparts and look at the track record. Okay, a number of Stephen King movies range from decent to good, depending on what story they're adapted from. You can count on anything written by Neil Gaiman to be done well on the big screen because HE is the one in control. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a smash hit despite the fact that Douglas Adams never got to see it finished. However, the book-movies don't all pan out perfectly and some miss the mark.
Let's take a few hits from Michael Critchton, author of Jurassic Park, The Lost World (JP's sequel book), The Terminal Man, Andromeda Strain, Sphere, and so freakin' on. I've read all the above examples and seen their movie counterparts. To the movies, I say "Not bad.". We all liked the two JP movies because they were freakin' based off of the work of a decent author. Everything after that? Fuck it. The books were more violent and involved, of course, but what book isn't? Terminal Man and Andromeda Strain were pretty good, for their time. They were made in a classic age in an old style which fit the ways of the author. Kind of like watching a Hitchcock movie. You still love it in this day and age. Only beef I have with Andromeda Strain was that later-made, playing-to-our-stereotypes-and-screwing-up-the-STORY two part version of it. Oh, and Sphere? I liked it, and I liked the cast they put in it, but it needed to be more involved and we needed to see more of the squid.
So really, movies over books? That's a hit-or-miss situation with nine-tenths of the bullseye missing and you're using blunt darts. You need a BOOK to GUIDE the story, WHATEVER the venue. Or at least...you need a book-writer to make it brilliant from the start. Kind of like Joss Whedon. I don't think books will become irrelevent. I'm HOPING bad writers do.
Now, onto the point of books themselves. Let's compare them with their movie counterparts and look at the track record. Okay, a number of Stephen King movies range from decent to good, depending on what story they're adapted from. You can count on anything written by Neil Gaiman to be done well on the big screen because HE is the one in control. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was a smash hit despite the fact that Douglas Adams never got to see it finished. However, the book-movies don't all pan out perfectly and some miss the mark.
Let's take a few hits from Michael Critchton, author of Jurassic Park, The Lost World (JP's sequel book), The Terminal Man, Andromeda Strain, Sphere, and so freakin' on. I've read all the above examples and seen their movie counterparts. To the movies, I say "Not bad.". We all liked the two JP movies because they were freakin' based off of the work of a decent author. Everything after that? Fuck it. The books were more violent and involved, of course, but what book isn't? Terminal Man and Andromeda Strain were pretty good, for their time. They were made in a classic age in an old style which fit the ways of the author. Kind of like watching a Hitchcock movie. You still love it in this day and age. Only beef I have with Andromeda Strain was that later-made, playing-to-our-stereotypes-and-screwing-up-the-STORY two part version of it. Oh, and Sphere? I liked it, and I liked the cast they put in it, but it needed to be more involved and we needed to see more of the squid.
So really, movies over books? That's a hit-or-miss situation with nine-tenths of the bullseye missing and you're using blunt darts. You need a BOOK to GUIDE the story, WHATEVER the venue. Or at least...you need a book-writer to make it brilliant from the start. Kind of like Joss Whedon. I don't think books will become irrelevent. I'm HOPING bad writers do.
