Why the Book Is Always Better
- Thread starter Elizabeth Grunewald
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fight Club is the best example of a film adaptation better capturing the spirit of the source material then the source material itself. It's a rare find but as pointed out in another comment, even the author of the book said the film did a better job then his own writing.
Books will always, always have the upper hand when it comes to this debate. Because a book can be as long as it damn well wants to and allows the person to create their own scenes with the characters.
I was glad the movies of the lord of the rings came out. I couldn't get trough the book, it was like reading the Iliad that I've put away after reading the first 200 or so pages when my brain decided to flee out of boredom. The only movie that was true to the book and just as good was the godfather.
The book isn't always, better, but going by your theory that the original story is always the best.
Lets take a look at A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi.
The "novelizations" books came out around the same time as the movies, and usually novelizations are worse, but A New Hope is just as good or better than the movie, but it the only Star Wars book written by George Lucas. There are some errors in the book, but it adds so much more depth to the story.
Lets take a look at A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi.
The "novelizations" books came out around the same time as the movies, and usually novelizations are worse, but A New Hope is just as good or better than the movie, but it the only Star Wars book written by George Lucas. There are some errors in the book, but it adds so much more depth to the story.
I still will argue that The Godfather is an acception to that rule. The book is okay, but the movie? Fabulous.
While this exception is very, very rare it's still worth noting that you shouldn't always make that generalized statement.
While this exception is very, very rare it's still worth noting that you shouldn't always make that generalized statement.
From this and the other article, I conclude that an article of entertainment from one medium should stay on that medium. I can't say I disagree, either, because in my humble opinion, the book is always best as a book, the movie is always best as a movie and a game is always best as a game. I could sit here and ramble over why, but I don't feel it's necessary and has been well-covered elsewhere.
So many films are based of off books, does this de-value them? Books and films are different experiences and should be viewed as such. Is Roadside Picnic better than Stalker? Heart of Darkness better than Apocalypse Now? Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep better than Blade Runner? No, IT'S DIFFERENT! Different is different, it's not bad purely because it's different. You can't ask for a film to be exactly as the book tells it, because what would be the point why read the book if it's the exact same? And often the worst adaptations are when the film tried far too hard to be like the book.
And surely can you not argue that there is value in seeing someone else's perspective on a story?
And there are limits to the human imagination, the pictures in my head when I read any book will never be as clear as they are when on a screen.
And there is a joy in seeing something fully realised on screen and just as often as I may be disappointed if someone's view of a character isn't the same as mine; the film makers view of a character can in fact be better than the one in my head.
Books aren't perfect either you know, there are faults in any book and films can improve on them.
The very different nature of the medium can also act in the films favour at times, as a visual medium so many important details can be represented on screen in a mere moment and handled with a far greater degree of subtlety than in books where things literally do have to be spelled out.
So many great films are based off of books, to suggest that for every single one of them that the book is better is absurd. Even the Godfather is based off of a book and it is widely considered one of the greatest if not the greatest film of all time. By applying these rules, the book surely must be the greatest publication ever committed to print... think about that.
Books can be better than films and jsut as much films can be better than books. Hell theres even the possiblity for gmaes to be better that both, I mean there is... it just hasn't happened yet. But when Scorcese or Werner Herzog start directing videogame addaptations... that would be something. And who knows, both of these respective directors are making 3D films and 3D is a fucking gimmick.
And surely can you not argue that there is value in seeing someone else's perspective on a story?
And there are limits to the human imagination, the pictures in my head when I read any book will never be as clear as they are when on a screen.
And there is a joy in seeing something fully realised on screen and just as often as I may be disappointed if someone's view of a character isn't the same as mine; the film makers view of a character can in fact be better than the one in my head.
Books aren't perfect either you know, there are faults in any book and films can improve on them.
The very different nature of the medium can also act in the films favour at times, as a visual medium so many important details can be represented on screen in a mere moment and handled with a far greater degree of subtlety than in books where things literally do have to be spelled out.
So many great films are based off of books, to suggest that for every single one of them that the book is better is absurd. Even the Godfather is based off of a book and it is widely considered one of the greatest if not the greatest film of all time. By applying these rules, the book surely must be the greatest publication ever committed to print... think about that.
Books can be better than films and jsut as much films can be better than books. Hell theres even the possiblity for gmaes to be better that both, I mean there is... it just hasn't happened yet. But when Scorcese or Werner Herzog start directing videogame addaptations... that would be something. And who knows, both of these respective directors are making 3D films and 3D is a fucking gimmick.
The Cohen brothers have openly talked of doing a film version of The Yiddish Policeman's Union. I think this will be awesome.
Actually, the film is usually better than the book. Ask any major artist or philosopher. "The book is always better" is a pop culture meme with no traction among educated people. (And no, that perfunctory liberal arts degree doesn't make you educated. Sorry.)
I wonder, would books to games would be a smoother transition.
A video game can have more content and have more detail then a two hour film. While the world is locked to how the designers make the world, the main character can be changed with some character creation.
However, our only example of this is the Witcher and well...
A video game can have more content and have more detail then a two hour film. While the world is locked to how the designers make the world, the main character can be changed with some character creation.
However, our only example of this is the Witcher and well...
Others have referenced excellent adaptations and so I will not ponder anymore on that, as to avoid marginalizing their efforts; instead, if there is a point to be had from this, films are meant for drama and books are meant for philosophy, and this goes hand-in-hand with the Alice in Wonderland example. Macbeth has some of the most endearing speeches in literature and Don Quixote greater characters, precisely due to their nature as visual media and written media.
I would think that films, therefore, have an unfair advantage over books in the objective of being better, considering that most books nowadays endeavor to be tragedies. And even if films did not try to be imitative of tragedies, they still have unfulfilled potential in the more philosophical books; A Clockwork Orange had that incredibly visceral scene in which Alex was brainwashed. Why book adaptations persist on being, for the most part, bad is a mystery.
Off the top of my head, A Tale of Two Cities can be made into an excellent book adaptation, if fortune allows it. Sydney Carton's state of depression can be enhanced rather than overly emphasized, the grindstone scene can be given greater effect with the use of true, crimson blood, the Marquis's chateau scene can be made more haunting, and the end scene can be written without all that optimistic motherfuckery.
I would think that films, therefore, have an unfair advantage over books in the objective of being better, considering that most books nowadays endeavor to be tragedies. And even if films did not try to be imitative of tragedies, they still have unfulfilled potential in the more philosophical books; A Clockwork Orange had that incredibly visceral scene in which Alex was brainwashed. Why book adaptations persist on being, for the most part, bad is a mystery.
Off the top of my head, A Tale of Two Cities can be made into an excellent book adaptation, if fortune allows it. Sydney Carton's state of depression can be enhanced rather than overly emphasized, the grindstone scene can be given greater effect with the use of true, crimson blood, the Marquis's chateau scene can be made more haunting, and the end scene can be written without all that optimistic motherfuckery.
My favourite film of all time is A Clockwork Orange, but I saw the film first. I couldn't help reading the book and imagining it narrated by Malcolm McDowell, who so perfectly portrayed Alex in the film. The soundtrack was also a big advantage for the film, and a couple of minor details were improved for the film, the biggest being the insertion of "I'm Singin' in the Rain" which couldn't have worked in the book. I also found the adaptation of 1984 to be extremely accurate (the adaptation made in 1984, not the one from 1954). My only problem wth it was the torture chamber was too dirty- it should have been slick and clean and advanced, revealing the deadly efficient underbelly of the squalid totalitarian state.
I don't understand why we continue to make these kinds of stories, simply put in extremely broad terms, everything experienced from a medium is a form of interpretation, how that comes to us, obstacles (boredom, work, etc.) that stop us from viewing the medium and our own personal preferences make it so that people will interpret differently than others, this is why people who have different views of movies and books will be unsatisfied if they didn't envision that experience from the start (and mostly if they can;t understand elements like budget time etc.).
Heres an example, I hated the first Harry Potter movies, but people who never read the books, had read the books and thought this would be how it would end up, and those who had read the books but were willing to make concessions liked the movies. Several times, what makes people like/dislike a movie over the books has little to do with the fact that books can take more time to flesh out scenery, characters and the world around them, and more to do with what everyone wants to see, You can flesh out characters in easy ways in movies, the director's/developers personal preference/interpretation comes when they remove scenes to add new scenes they made up, or removing characters that hardly affected anything in the major story.
To summarize, it is almost pointless to say that something "is better" than an adaptation, there are things you can clearly point out like competent direction and pacing, because in the long run those who liked the books, and saw only their own interpretation will feel cheated no matter what you put on screen, and those that enjoyed said movie on screen might not read the books because they would feel they are too long, and long-winded.
Heres an example, I hated the first Harry Potter movies, but people who never read the books, had read the books and thought this would be how it would end up, and those who had read the books but were willing to make concessions liked the movies. Several times, what makes people like/dislike a movie over the books has little to do with the fact that books can take more time to flesh out scenery, characters and the world around them, and more to do with what everyone wants to see, You can flesh out characters in easy ways in movies, the director's/developers personal preference/interpretation comes when they remove scenes to add new scenes they made up, or removing characters that hardly affected anything in the major story.
To summarize, it is almost pointless to say that something "is better" than an adaptation, there are things you can clearly point out like competent direction and pacing, because in the long run those who liked the books, and saw only their own interpretation will feel cheated no matter what you put on screen, and those that enjoyed said movie on screen might not read the books because they would feel they are too long, and long-winded.
Hmm, my problem with HP was a lot more involved than that. The scriptwriting especially was my major complaint. It was so butchered that at times (especially in the 3rd movie) if I hadn't already read the books, I would have no idea what was going on. And I don't subscribe to the 'but everyone HAS read the books' excuse. There's no excuse for bad storytelling. That's not even touching on blatantly contradictory elements (wandlight under the covers during the summer anyone?), hit-and-miss casting and shallow execution.Elizabeth Grunewald said:
It's true that movies can't hope to match the books in terms of depth - they only have two hours. But I feel that they should take the chance to add to the books. Give us some new scenes, some unspoken growth between characters, maybe some back story that the author hinted at but didn't actually write down. Add TO to the books, don't just regurgitate the most skin-flaking layer in a greedy grab for quick bucks.
Of course, even that is a matter of personal opinion. I see movies based on books as a chance to expand the world. But a lot of other people simply want the world condensed into a fun visual format.
I'd like to see an article touching on the reverse... what happens when you see the movie first and find the book(s) not as good? This happens to me quite a lot, especially Bourne Identity and Percy Jackson.
This is not always entirely accurate. It's not necessarily true that a replication will be worse than the origional. Even some of the greatest works can possess flaws, this gives the opportunity to not simply copy the origional, but to surpass it.Elizabeth Grunewald said:
If the goal is simply to follow the exact same format, the effort is doomed to failure, but by taking liberties and twisting the piece, a movie adaption has the potential to create a better experience. Of course, people who came expecting to see an exact replication will be disappointed, but then they should really have learned not to by now.