Why is the book almost always better than the movie version?
We're having a debate in class tomorrow and I need your opinions on why the book is better than its movie. Counterclaims and their refutations would also be appreciated! Just anything that I can win over the other team with. (I'm team books.)
- The_Doc_ManLv 74 months ago
Books can change perspective from what the character is SEEING or DOING to what the character is FEELING and THINKING. I.e. switch from objective to subjective issues. Movies have a lot of trouble doing so. Movies are almost always objective, and the ones that get inside someone's head tend to not be popular.
Case in point? Frank Herbert's Dune, which is a good court intrigue novel with some adventure - but half of the book is inside Paul Atreides's mind. Which is why Dune bombed at the box office. (Didn't help that the DeLaurentiis group turned it into a biblical epic in its tone.)
- 4 months ago
When reading a book, your imagination builds the world and everyone in it. I've read reviews where the author was credited for "bringing the characters to life". The reader gives life to the book, not the author.
- LoganLv 54 months ago
The books always have more detail, movies miss out on sub plots and character arcs purely because there's not enough time or they're not loyal enough to the source material.
For example, Ron Weasley. In the books Ron is shown to have a great strategic mind, nobody is able to beat him at wizard chess, he may be a studier but out of all his siblings he's most like Percy. In later books his jealousy is still there and it still undercuts his character but it is not his only trait as it is in the movies.
- jimanddottaylorLv 74 months ago
The movie has to tell the whole story in about 2 1/2 hours. If you read the same book in 2 1/2 hours, you are probably missing lots. The book lets you use your imagination , the movie only lets you see what the actors, directors, editors provide . Sometimes their vision is not congruent with yours
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JohnLv 74 months ago
A half hour TV news program contains just about one column of newspaper print. Why this matters is because a 2 hour movie probably has about a single chapter of dialogue. It takes two hours to watch the movie, it could take a month to read the book. Just more content, plain and simple.
- curtisports2Lv 74 months ago
Movies that attempt to delve into the thoughts of characters and the motivations behind their actions, something books can be excellent at, tend to be boring movies. To tell a story well, it is sometimes necessary for there to be a lot of exposition. Books can do this. There is an unseen, unidentified narrator, when written in third-person. Movies do not do this well. You can only see what you see; unless you are told the meaning or future implications of what you are seeing, much is lost. Some movies employ a narrator, but most do not.
Action movies tend to have main characters who do not have a lot of depth. And what do action fans care? They want to see car chases, fist fights, gunfights, short, witty dialogue and other than that, no dialogue. And lots of destruction, things being blown up. Well, good books may sprinkle some of that in to spice things up, but no book that tries to be all of that makes for a good read - except maybe to young adolescent males.
- u_bin_calledLv 74 months ago
With very few exceptions, movies are experienced entirely from an outsider's perspective. Books not only invite you into the action but into the characters as well. As a reader, you literally read the minds of the characters and share their perspectives.
Books are also deeply personal, where movies are more social experiences. The words on the page serve to guide the brain, but even the most descriptive language allows the reader to create imagery in his/her mind that is totally unique. Each reader has his/her own spin on how each character appears and sounds, and how each scene is "fleshed out." In short, books are a superior experience because the experience is entirely yours.
I know people who have not seen any of the "Harry Potter" films...and I myself refused to see any of the "Lord of the Rings" films...The reason? These books played an important role in our lives when we were young. I've carried my visions of Middle Earth and all the characters in my head for decades. To me, seeing the movie version would have been like cheapening the relationship I've had with these characters in my mind since childhood.
- Anonymous4 months ago
the book allows the reader to interpret the content in a way that makes the characters experience more personal to the reader. for example, if in the book it states something very briefly about a characters experience, the reader will then have a personal connection to the character, engaging them to read on.
- FrankLv 54 months ago
A book, simply put, doesn't have to wrap things up in a nice little ball after 90 minutes to 2 hours. A movie has to be visually interesting...not full of accuracy or even decent plot content. Have you ever re watched a movie and inserted MORE APPROPRIATE DIALOG to a situation to explain things? People in movies don't speak in a normal manner...they are highly SCRIPTED. Normal conversations of humans can take HOURS...too long for a silly movie.
Look at what happened with Disney's ALADDIN (the cartoon with Robin Williams). They literally had HOURS and HOURS of Robin Williams doing all sorts of funny - AND UNSCRIPTED - items ON AUDIO and VIDEO TAPE, only some of his voice performance which got put into the movie...and CHANGED THE MOVIE COMPLETELY simply because of his genius.
Movies...in a word...SUCK.
- SandyLv 74 months ago
the book allows the reader to get inside the character's head to see how they think and feel. it's a lot more intimate and that makes reading fun. the movie can only show who the character is by their actions and reactions.