Why Books Are (Usually) Better Than Their Movie Adaptations
Hello!
Recently, I finished the book Divergent by Veronica Roth and loved it. The next day -- ironically -- the movie from 2014 was playing on TV, so I decided to watch it.
I found the movie entertaining -- even though a lot of the original plot was left out, and it was a little different from how I imagined it in my head. But, undoubtedly, the book was better than the movie.
I think about other movies that I've seen that were based on books I read. And, well...they've never lived up to my expectations. A lot of readers can attest to that, too.
The Hunger Games. Harry Potter. The Shining.
(Okay, the Bladerunner movie *was* better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? but that's a very rare instance.)
Why is this? Why do book adaptations often fall short? Below are six reasons why I believe this happens:
1. A Movie Doesn't Excite The Imagination
When you're reading, you're required to use your imagination to envision the characters and world(s). With a movie, it's right there in front of you. No work needed. Where's the fun in that?
Personally, a movie doesn't ask enough of the viewer -- not in the same way a book does. You need a healthy, vivid imagination to be a reader, which is why I think some people don't like to read. They can't visualize things based on descriptions -- or they're too lazy to do so.
2. The Movie Has To Cut Things Out
As a screenwriter who recently adapted my novel into a screenplay, I understand why the story needs to be cut short. A screenplay is 120 pages, max -- but a novel can be 400 pages and up! It's common sense that a lot of little details and sub-plots will be left out so the movie can move at a faster pace and not be 6 hours long. (No one's going to sit through another 'Ten Commandments' -- trust me.)
But in doing this, the story can loose its soul -- and you have to be careful you aren't leaving important information out. It's a risk every screenwriter takes, hoping the end of the film will make sense with all the cuts.
3. Movies Have Less Feelings and Thoughts
(This follows a similar point to the one above.) Backstory. Inner thoughts. Beautiful Descriptions. Those are all lost when a movie takes place. While I believe movies are art, they don't get in the characters' heads as much as a book can. If a novel is written in first person, it feels like an intimate experience -- like a friend is telling you their story.
But inner-thoughts are a big no-no in films. It's called a monologue if a character stands there telling you how they feel -- and it's a rare thing to see in movies these days. (Except in Shakespeare films, but they were based on plays where monologues are heavy.) The rule of 'show, don't tell' is even more important in a film -- but you miss out on knowing what the characters are thinking in that moment. Sometimes, a facial expression can't tell you everything.
4. Books Are Portable
Okay, I suppose this isn't true anymore in the age of YouTube and iPhones. But back in the day, you had to go to the cinema to see a film. However, a book was ready anytime -- whenever you were. You could take them on the train, in the car, on a plane, on a bus, at the park...anywhere. Even now when a new film comes out, you have to go see it in theaters with other people. Books are introvert Heaven, I tell you.
I find it a lot easier to read a book in a public place than a movie on my tiny iPhone screen. Just saying. (And I find less people will look over and try to read it with you, than say, watching Star Wars on a crowded bus. That's just asking for an audience.)
5. Bad Acting? Not In Books
I've seen many films with great concepts and good scripts that were marred by bad actors. But in books? That never happens. The dialogue exists in our minds, and it sounds a lot more convincing in a novel than in a film sometimes.
Fictional characters have no problems crying, screaming, arguing, or dying convincingly. Good actors can do justice to a great script, but bad actors? Ouch. It can ruin the entire film!
6. Books Improve Our Literacy Skills
There's a reason our teachers encouraged us to read books more than watch television/films. Reading books helps us improve our vocabulary, grammar, and writing skills. An illiterate can watch a film, but an illiterate cannot read a book.
When you buy someone a book, you're gifting them with knowledge. And, as they say, knowledge is power. Personally, I believe books are a human right -- but movies are a privilege. Books can teach us far more than a film can -- even though there are many great movies out there.
So there you have it -- six points on how books are often better than their movie adaptations. There are always exceptions to the rule, so this is just a general overview.
Do you prefer the book over its adaption? Why or why not? I'd love to know!
Sincerely,
Dana
Recently, I finished the book Divergent by Veronica Roth and loved it. The next day -- ironically -- the movie from 2014 was playing on TV, so I decided to watch it.
I found the movie entertaining -- even though a lot of the original plot was left out, and it was a little different from how I imagined it in my head. But, undoubtedly, the book was better than the movie.
I think about other movies that I've seen that were based on books I read. And, well...they've never lived up to my expectations. A lot of readers can attest to that, too.
The Hunger Games. Harry Potter. The Shining.
(Okay, the Bladerunner movie *was* better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? but that's a very rare instance.)
Why is this? Why do book adaptations often fall short? Below are six reasons why I believe this happens:
1. A Movie Doesn't Excite The Imagination
When you're reading, you're required to use your imagination to envision the characters and world(s). With a movie, it's right there in front of you. No work needed. Where's the fun in that?
Personally, a movie doesn't ask enough of the viewer -- not in the same way a book does. You need a healthy, vivid imagination to be a reader, which is why I think some people don't like to read. They can't visualize things based on descriptions -- or they're too lazy to do so.
2. The Movie Has To Cut Things Out
As a screenwriter who recently adapted my novel into a screenplay, I understand why the story needs to be cut short. A screenplay is 120 pages, max -- but a novel can be 400 pages and up! It's common sense that a lot of little details and sub-plots will be left out so the movie can move at a faster pace and not be 6 hours long. (No one's going to sit through another 'Ten Commandments' -- trust me.)
But in doing this, the story can loose its soul -- and you have to be careful you aren't leaving important information out. It's a risk every screenwriter takes, hoping the end of the film will make sense with all the cuts.
3. Movies Have Less Feelings and Thoughts
(This follows a similar point to the one above.) Backstory. Inner thoughts. Beautiful Descriptions. Those are all lost when a movie takes place. While I believe movies are art, they don't get in the characters' heads as much as a book can. If a novel is written in first person, it feels like an intimate experience -- like a friend is telling you their story.
But inner-thoughts are a big no-no in films. It's called a monologue if a character stands there telling you how they feel -- and it's a rare thing to see in movies these days. (Except in Shakespeare films, but they were based on plays where monologues are heavy.) The rule of 'show, don't tell' is even more important in a film -- but you miss out on knowing what the characters are thinking in that moment. Sometimes, a facial expression can't tell you everything.
4. Books Are Portable
Okay, I suppose this isn't true anymore in the age of YouTube and iPhones. But back in the day, you had to go to the cinema to see a film. However, a book was ready anytime -- whenever you were. You could take them on the train, in the car, on a plane, on a bus, at the park...anywhere. Even now when a new film comes out, you have to go see it in theaters with other people. Books are introvert Heaven, I tell you.
I find it a lot easier to read a book in a public place than a movie on my tiny iPhone screen. Just saying. (And I find less people will look over and try to read it with you, than say, watching Star Wars on a crowded bus. That's just asking for an audience.)
5. Bad Acting? Not In Books
I've seen many films with great concepts and good scripts that were marred by bad actors. But in books? That never happens. The dialogue exists in our minds, and it sounds a lot more convincing in a novel than in a film sometimes.
Fictional characters have no problems crying, screaming, arguing, or dying convincingly. Good actors can do justice to a great script, but bad actors? Ouch. It can ruin the entire film!
6. Books Improve Our Literacy Skills
There's a reason our teachers encouraged us to read books more than watch television/films. Reading books helps us improve our vocabulary, grammar, and writing skills. An illiterate can watch a film, but an illiterate cannot read a book.
When you buy someone a book, you're gifting them with knowledge. And, as they say, knowledge is power. Personally, I believe books are a human right -- but movies are a privilege. Books can teach us far more than a film can -- even though there are many great movies out there.
So there you have it -- six points on how books are often better than their movie adaptations. There are always exceptions to the rule, so this is just a general overview.
Do you prefer the book over its adaption? Why or why not? I'd love to know!
Sincerely,
Dana
Comments
Post a Comment