Why the Book Is Always Better

[-Samurai-]

I wouldn't say that one is better than the other. They're two completely different mediums with different constraints.

Books rely on imagination and the use of descriptive words to convey exactly what's going on, and your imagination makes the book that more personal to you.

Movies can only really show you. Everyone watching is seeing the same thing.

They're both great mediums in their own ways.

Also:
Watch Top Gear. Play Minecraft. Get flag.

 

[pigmypython]

I disagree with the Lord of the Rings. I found that the books ended up having quite a bit of dull, no point sections. Plus the movies did a better job with Faramir because they changed his character a bit.

While I did like the books I can see exactly where you are coming from. There were sections (especially in the first book) where I dreaded reading a certain chapter due to how it was written (Council of Elrond I am looking at you). Sort of have to remember Tolkien was an excellent storyteller but not a great writer (he was a linguist and historian) and he stuck to what he knew. There are characters you see only once and never again (much like a history book) and writing down entire songs in another language drove me nuts lol. (I must admit the songs sound great when ACTUALLY sung however). The movie was a great adaption (I do miss the whole scourging of the shire portion however but I understand that would have made the final movie about 5 hours long instead of 4...).

 

[mikespoff]

Oddly enough I think the film version of LoTR was better than the books.

Blasphemy.

 

[mikespoff]

List of films that are better than the books (this is not to say the books are necessarily bad by the way) - Fight Club, Lord of the Rings (all of them, ESPECIALLY extended editions), Goodfellas, Forest Gump, and The Godfather. Other adaptations come close, Scott Pilgrim for example (arguable but I loved it).

I'll give you Fight Club.

Also Godfather, mostly because Puzo's prose is just awful at times. I mean, he crafts a good story, but some of his descriptive stuff is horribly written, and he has an unfortunate tendency to re-use particular turns of phrase.

 

[Simulated Eon]

Interesting article and I completely agree.
The thing was when I started notice this I have always wanted to read the book before I see the movie (a reason to why I still haven't seen "It") so that I don't have my imagination spoiled when I read the book.
It is also a readon to why I hate certain movies becase they stray so far from the books or completly destroys the narative (Eragon I'm pointing at you).

But on the other hand if you watch the film first you can still enjoy it and then enjoy the book even more rather than enjoying the read and then finding the film to be a massive disappointment. It depends how much the visual stuff in the film interferes with your imagination. For example when I read I Am Legend after the film it was never once Will Smith who I imagined in the role. When I read American Psycho however Christian Bale fit the bill perfectly in terms of appearance so that definitely influenced my imagination.

That may be the case but often because of the books I read (mostly fantasy and sci-fi and a little horror) I hardly ever see a good adaption of them. But Fight Club is a book I could read becase I really like the movie and then see what they did different.

 

[Ampersand]

It's not always true. Fight club for example worked much better as a movie then it did as a book. Also I for one much prefered the lord of the rings movies to the books.

 

[TiefBlau]

*shakes head* An adaptation seeks to simplify and stream line story and events, to not only make it more palatable to the drool masses but be enjoyed by them, which means more crap it brought out from the gutter or someones hidden drug stash to write up nonsensical filler that dose not need to be in the adaptation regardless be it themes,dailog or changing the focus of the film to the human cast rather than focusing on oh I dunno the stars of the film....

/Transformers rant

So, in a nutshell, you think Transformers appeals too much to the "drool masses" by focusing on the interactions of people rather than action scenes with giant robots? Okay.

Believe it or not, there are no "drool masses". They're just people, and they play a game or go to a movie not always to realign their views on mankind and their conundrums of philosophy. Sometimes, they want to be entertained. That being said, there are different kinds of people. Yes, this is possible without having to resort to assumptions of intellectual superiority. Because you're not a genius. You're really not. Obviously, painting has completely different constraints and freedoms that books don't have. That doesn't mean people who appreciate art are stupid, or that it takes more skill to make a profound painting than a book. They're just different styles. I don't see people bitching about how, unlike a novel, a painting can't arrange in order what the artist wants the audience to experience. "Time constraints" are hardly ever different.

The Dark knight was good but it is more the exception than the rule of adaptation, one can not remove or change 40-70% of the themes and fiction just to adapt it, if you do you will fail more often than not. Then again a bad film that sells well is not a failing.... its the status quo....

Good one, broski.

You can make a good movie if you attempt to stay "faithful" to the source. Just good. It won't have any lasting impact at all. People will forget Iron Man and Watchmen films years from now, because you know what? It's not that different from the comics in the first place. So yeah, they're a pretty good "adaptation", and they're pretty "faithful", but you know what? They're nothing special. Because the comics are still there, and if you want to get the good story unmolested, you can go read the comics, and even if the film outlives the comics, they're still the same story. The film will never achieve individuality. It's just a subsect of that franchise that happens to be the most popular.

Great films dare to be different, no matter what the subject matter. Heath Ledger was the first person to ever win an Oscar for playing a comic book character. That's not something Christopher Reeves or Daniel Radcliffe can even dream of doing in their famed roles. I look at Batman: Arkham Asylum, and I gotta say, it's a good game. I look at the Joker, and I say to myself, "Yeah, that's pretty accurate." I look at Heath Ledger's Joker, and I think, "Holy shit." He changes the way people look at Batman. At this point, it's no longer adaptation; it's interpretation.

But adaptation does have some place in the world. Now, novels are a bit different. The reality is that no one reads books. And that's regrettable. So what do we do? Do we just scoff at their intellectual inferiority and say that if they can't take the complexities of the literary techniques that authors use, they can go live their lives in ignorance? Or do we make the work more accessible, and inspire them to try to understand? To illustrate my point, Mythbusters and Bill Nye have been dumbing down stuff in the world of science, yes. But they're also making the medium more inviting, and inspiring others to learn. And that's as commendable an action as that of any Nobel laureate.
[hr]640[/hr]
I heard they're making a film based on one of my more more favored novels, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, so I'm curious to see what they will do to interpret and adapt the novel. I have my doubts that I will particularly like the movie, but we'll wait and see.

 

[Simulated Eon]

snip

/Transformers rant

snip

The reality is that no one reads books.

snip

Sorry but I must ask. No one reads books? Like never I just want to know if you just put it weird or if you really mean that no one reads books. Because I read books.

 

[qeinar]

fight club is a pretty awesome book made into a movie also. The book is ofcourse better, but damn the movie is really awesome to..

It's not always true. Fight club for example worked much better as a movie then it did as a book. Also I for one much prefered the lord of the rings movies to the books.

basicly i kinda disagree with you, but it's just a matter of preference, I think both were fatastic. (my opinions might be due to the ending in the book, which I liked more than the ending in the movie.. also i was slightly drunk while reading the book.. : p)

oh and also this is not a movie but a series: have anyone read dexter? Both the books and the series is awesome, still enjoyed the books abit more, but i started to appreciate the series more after reading the books.

Also i remember something from a movie that anoyed me; the golden compass, i had read the book, not really a that good book and went to see the movie. in the movie i noticed that one of the characters in the movie, which had in the book been descirbed as having long white(or blonde can't remember) hair, what did they do in the movie? gave her black midlong hair.. i was just anoyed becuase i could not understand why they would give her black hair instead of white, it would be sooooo easy to change that.. : P

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

/Transformers rant

So, in a nutshell, you think Transformers appeals too much to the "drool masses" by focusing on the interactions of people rather than action scenes with giant robots? Okay.

Believe it or not, there are no "drool masses". They're just people, and they play a game or go to a movie not always to realign their views on mankind and their conundrums of philosophy. Sometimes, they want to be entertained. That being said, there are different kinds of people. Yes, this is possible without having to resort to assumptions of intellectual superiority. Because you're not a genius. You're really not. Obviously, painting has completely different constraints and freedoms that books don't have. That doesn't mean people who appreciate art are stupid, or that it takes more skill to make a profound painting than a book. They're just different styles. I don't see people bitching about how, unlike a novel, a painting can't arrange in order what the artist wants the audience to experience. "Time constraints" are hardly ever different.

Wooaahhhhhhh......talk about miss something the size of a galaxy.... how about interactions between the characters/personalities of the "big robots". Its like Star Wars new eps to much focus on bad writing not enough focus on good writing.

You see you are missing the point you think well selling=good I think it is irrelevant, all that matters is that it at least tries for qaulity be it in story or comedy everything else will be forgotten in weeks after release.Why? Because the costumers will buy it no matter how bad it sucks, unless its a niche in a niche then there is not enough care factor for interest thus no sales are made, and this is inherent in all media. Of coarse like politics you can argue that always serving the lowest common denominator is a good thing that can not and should not be questioned... but I am black sheeple I will laugh at the herd that mirrors my own vanity.
===========================================

The Dark knight was good but it is more the exception than the rule of adaptation, one can not remove or change 40-70% of the themes and fiction just to adapt it, if you do you will fail more often than not. Then again a bad film that sells well is not a failing.... its the status quo....

Good one, broski.

You can make a good movie if you attempt to stay "faithful" to the source. Just good. It won't have any lasting impact at all. People will forget Iron Man and Watchmen films years from now, because you know what? It's not that different from the comics in the first place. So yeah, they're a pretty good "adaptation", and they're pretty "faithful", but you know what? They're nothing special. Because the comics are still there, and if you want to get the good story unmolested, you can go read the comics, and even if the film outlives the comics, they're still the same story. The film will never achieve individuality. It's just a subsect of that franchise that happens to be the most popular.

Great films dare to be different, no matter what the subject matter. Heath Ledger was the first person to ever win an Oscar for playing a comic book character. That's not something Christopher Reeves or Daniel Radcliffe can even dream of doing in their famed roles. I look at Batman: Arkham Asylum, and I gotta say, it's a good game. I look at the Joker, and I say to myself, "Yeah, that's pretty accurate." I look at Heath Ledger's Joker, and I think, "Holy shit." He changes the way people look at Batman. At this point, it's no longer adaptation; it's interpretation.

But adaptation does have some place in the world. Now, novels are a bit different. The reality is that no one reads books. And that's regrettable. So what do we do? Do we just scoff at their intellectual inferiority and say that if they can't take the complexities of the literary techniques that authors use, they can go live their lives in ignorance? Or do we make the work more accessible, and inspire them to try to understand? To illustrate my point, Mythbusters and Bill Nye have been dumbing down stuff in the world of science, yes. But they're also making the medium more inviting, and inspiring others to learn. And that's as commendable an action as that of any Nobel laureate.
[hr]640[/hr]
I heard they're making a film based on one of my more more favored novels, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, so I'm curious to see what they will do to interpret and adapt the novel. I have my doubts that I will particularly like the movie, but we'll wait and see.

You just made my point for me, no one cares for qaulity, FOR THE LULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even more so they go for the lulz so it SHOULD not matter to the adaptation of the fiction but think it dose thus rape it for all its worth 8 times out of ten...

(PS making science fun and entertaining is worlds apart from making fiction fun and entertaining because one of these processes removes so much it becomes forgotten after the tweens(12-2X) saw it 12 times....)

Do you remember DOOM? or Wing Commander ? How about Double Dragon?Hulk? X-Men Origins wolverine(ok its to new and still gives me nightmares)?

I guess since you brought it up its interpretation versus adaptation, a true as you can get adaptation tends to come off better than the average more unique interpretation that tends to be bad at drawing dumb stick straws,this is mostly true for action focused films that already are "limited" in scope and breath.

 

[Thaius]

Hmm... I've been studying adaptation recently, and I would have to disagree.

Reason simply being that this article seems to consider an adaptation "successful" based purely on fidelity. If a movie can provide the exact same experience that the book did, it is a good adaptation. However, this is simply not true; that is not adaptation, that is imitation. This is not a question of how accurately an adaptation can emulate the source material, it's a question of how successfully one can take advantage of the new medium's unique properties to effectively tell the story in a way that best fits the new medium. In my views, the base argument for this article is flawed, and thus is the rest as well.

 

[clarissa]

Why the Book Is Always Better

We say it every time an adaptation is filmed. Why is it so?

Read Full Article

Sorry if I am being rude; but your article, from its very title, is nothing but pretentious.
I would recommend you to read Linda Hutcheon's "Theory of Adaptation" and some Rosemarys Arrojo's books.

In short, the article says that a movie is never going to be better than a book because an adaptation is never going to "grasp" the "spirit" of the original. Well, I have some questions for you.
1) First of all, why does it have to be better?
2) Better according who? Fans? Non-fans? The movie director?
Well, this notion of "better" is nothing but the viewer's own tastes judging the adaptation. When one reads a book, he/she automaticaly starts a process of interpretation. This process is done with the undeniable support of the reader's background, which is everything the reader saw and lived. Undeniably, the reader uses this things to jugde and to interpret the book.
The thing is: my interpretation, for instance, will be different from your, e.g. And my interpretation will be different from the movie director/writer interpretation. Every process of translation/adaptation is, first of all, a process of reading and interpreting.
So, if you say that a book is better than the movie, you are, dangerously stating that someone else's interpretation is worse than yours. Thing is, there is no way to fairly judge this, as everyone is biased in accordance to their own understanding of the original.
The arguments against adaptation ("One faction wails that the movie looks nothing like their book-induced imagination, the other whines that crucial, relevant details were altered or omitted in the process of adaptation") are no "valid complaints", because they have no base to affirm that the their interpretation is better. Who said that this or that element is crucial? The author? The reader? Probably the reader.

Also, this "spirit" of the original is a very pretentious idea. Just think: are you really able to grasp the spirit of the text. I mean, the significance of a text is embedded in the text, is ready, waiting for you to find it? That mean that for any book, there will be only one valid interpretation. Which has already been proved not being true. Second, does the spirit of this book in possession of the author's feelings? If yes, how can we, readers, know for sure what the author felt or meant? Can we get into his/her mind? No, so there's no way we can tell.
The thing is: this "canonical aura" you see in the original is false. There's no spirit to grab. There is only your interpretation.

PS: I am not a defender of adaptations. There are good and bad (sometimes evil) adaptations. The problem is really the theory input behind the article.

 

[TiefBlau]

Wooaahhhhhhh......talk about miss something the size of a galaxy.... how about interactions between the characters/personalities of the "big robots". Its like Star Wars new eps to much focus on bad writing not enough focus on good writing.

I totally agree. Why do people make bad things? Why can't they make them good? Is it that hard to see that bad things are bad and good things are good?

Is this your logic? Seriously, what are you, five?

You see you are missing the point you think well selling=good

No. I don't. You seem to be missing the point.

I think it is irrelevant, all that matters is that it at least tries for qaulity be it in story or comedy everything else will be forgotten in weeks after release.

That's, almost verbatim, what I said.

..Are you reading my posts in the right language here?

Why? Because the costumers will buy it no matter how bad it sucks, unless its a niche in a niche then there is not enough care factor for interest thus no sales are made, and this is inherent in all media.

No, no one wants to buy a shitty game. We're not rolling around in cash here. They might buy a "safe" game like Bad Company 2, but few people, if anyone at all, want a shitty game.

Of coarse like politics you can argue that always serving the lowest common denominator is a good thing that can not and should not be questioned... but I am black sheeple I will laugh at the herd that mirrors my own vanity.

You just made my point for me, no one cares for qaulity, FOR THE LULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even more so they go for the lulz so it SHOULD not matter to the adaptation of the fiction but think it dose thus rape it for all its worth 8 times out of ten...

Do you even care about making sense anymore?

(PS making science fun and entertaining is worlds apart from making fiction fun and entertaining because one of these processes removes so much it becomes forgotten after the tweens(12-2X) saw it 12 times....)

Really? You don't think they remove loads of information about science, or water it down at all to make it more accessible? Okay.

Do you remember DOOM? or Wing Commander ? How about Double Dragon?Hulk? X-Men Origins wolverine(ok its to new and still gives me nightmares)?

Yeah, they suck too. I'm not saying changing things will instantly make them better. But at least they're trying.

I guess since you brought it up its interpretation versus adaptation, a true as you can get adaptation tends to come off better than the average more unique interpretation that tends to be bad at drawing dumb stick straws,this is mostly true for action focused films that already are "limited" in scope and breath.

lolwut?

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

uber snip

What you are stupid? Bad=easy to make, that plus consumers being witless sheep means we get more bad media.

Yes dear your point is bad is good, and good is a impossibility because they have to sell to the witless unwashed masses, even if it will sale regardless....

That's only half right consumers what media that is standardized just enough to be entertaining, this means qaulity is marginalized so production is streamlined that much more making for over simplified media that consumers refuse to do anything but purchase so the cycle repeats ,leaving qaulity and innovation stagnating.

Meh sanity is over rated.
My point being the current process in media makes it very difficult not to make bad or barely sub par media and consumers are to busy with life to care thus we get the great qaulity quagmire in media.

Mmmm they take out information and replace it with fun and witty SCIENCE!, in fiction they remove and rework it into utter crap, Blade for instance, the core character might not be that changed but everything around him was and to the point it was utter dreck, ultra realistic vampires with no powers other than basic super human crap its almsot as the Metrosexaul vampires er demons in Ghost rider.... At best you get something like Xmen 1 you have overt realism in art direction changing powers and looks which is annoying but basic story and flow of story comes off really not that bad ,the next 2 those the story and flow and changes get worse and worse ending with a half dressed Juggernaut who is a few screws and balls short of the real thing.

A true adaptation changes little the fiction at hand, an interpretation whats to change as much as it can to suit the adapter.

I think hollywood has to many fools in it who think they can interpret they should not...lay off the drugs and just do a simple adaption of the damn thing keeping the fiction mostly intact.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

It's not always true. Fight club for example worked much better as a movie then it did as a book. Also I for one much prefered the lord of the rings movies to the books.

Yes, yes, yes. Fight Club is my canonical example of when a movie is better than its book version.

Fight Club works best as a whiz-bang, fast-paced trick of film, where you don't see the twist coming because of clever filming procedures, where everything has a burst of speed and some real zing. The book didn't need long descriptive text, or special narration. It was essentially a movie script in itself, a pared-down greyhound that really needed room to run.

If the book feels like the slowness of reading the text is dragging it down, or describing the scenes just isn't doing it, or you really need to _see_ the characters, or it would really benefit from tricks of camera or film techniques that have no book parallel...it would probably make a better movie.

 

[Ampersand]

It's not always true. Fight club for example worked much better as a movie then it did as a book. Also I for one much prefered the lord of the rings movies to the books.

Yes, yes, yes. Fight Club is my canonical example of when a movie is better than its book version.

Fight Club works best as a whiz-bang, fast-paced trick of film, where you don't see the twist coming because of clever filming procedures, where everything has a burst of speed and some real zing. The book didn't need long descriptive text, or special narration. It was essentially a movie script in itself, a pared-down greyhound that really needed room to run.

If the book feels like the slowness of reading the text is dragging it down, or describing the scenes just isn't doing it, or you really need to _see_ the characters, or it would really benefit from tricks of camera or film techniques that have no book parallel...it would probably make a better movie.

That's what I said.

 

[Falseprophet]

On of the best changes was the line "A guy who came to Fight Club for the first time, his ass was a wad of cookie dough. After a few weeks, he was carved out of wood." The book used the term "white bread" instead of cookie dough. In the DVD commentary, Palahnuik asked the scriptwriter John Uhls is he changed it because it sounded racist. Uhls said, no he just thought it was funnier.

That was definitely better. I think the DVD bonus features included a few deleted scenes that were shot with the book's original dialogue, that were ultimately replaced with better dialogue in the film.

I really liked the scene in the car. In the book, the driver's just a member of Project Mayhem, repeating some of Tyler Durdun's philosophy to The Narrator. In the film, they just put Durden as the driver. Not only did this give Brad Pitt more screen time, it made more sense (why bother with second-hand heresay when you can have the man himself say it?) and helped make The Big Reveal more effective.

 

[FlyAwayAutumn]

That's why I throw out my recollection of the book, if I've read it before seeing the movie, and just enjoy the movie. When Scott Pilgrim was made into a film I threw out my experience reading the book and just enjoyed the fight scenes in the movie, I also enjoy spotting what they changed afterwards.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Pardon me if this has been addressed already in this thread; it's late and I can't be bothered to read through it all.

Saying that what is lost in the transition from book to film is valuable enough to make the book necessarily superior could easily be interpreted as meaning that film as a medium is inferior to books as a medium. Let me put it this way: Take almost any good film. Imagine it as a book. And not a cheap cash-in novelization; a good book written by a competent author. Wouldn't people who read that book before seeing the movie always insist that the book was "better" than the movie, for the reasons you listed?

Maybe that means film as a medium really is inherently inferior to books. I'm not such a Hollywood fanboy that I won't admit that, given enough evidence. But if that is true, then all the more reason to not care. As long as films made from books can still stand up as good films, that's all that probably matters.

 

[TiefBlau]

snip

Fuck, you're impenetrable. I don't know if you just don't have a strong enough grasp of English to understand the points I'm making or what, but whatever semblance of reasonable argument you had before is gone. I'm done.

That's why I throw out my recollection of the book, if I've read it before seeing the movie, and just enjoy the movie. When Scott Pilgrim was made into a film I threw out my experience reading the book and just enjoyed the fight scenes in the movie, I also enjoy spotting what they changed afterwards.

I actually enjoy comparing Scott Pilgrim with the actual comics. Even if I didn't particularly like the movie, it's still interesting to see the way others see the comics.