Never Judge a Book by its Movie

I found an interesting critic on Yahoo Voices (first time reading something on this site) focusing on One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (sorry to beat a dead horse) and the book vs. movie debate. He argues the book "is by far better than the movie". He recommends that everyone should read the book before watching the movie because it is impossible to cover everything in the novel. Many parts are excluded or otherwise changed to fit the average time limit of two hours. When watching a movie, the presentation is shown the way the producers want you to see it. When reading a book, you imagine the characters the way you want to. This works both ways. Some may like that the book comes alive in movies with characters and scenery, but others may favor the imagination inherent in reading books. No scene in the book exists where the patients go out and play basketball. Also in the movie, McMurphy gets away and takes the boys fishing while in the book the fishing trip is organized. These slight changes show that the director wants to make the movie more fast paced and entertaining to the audience. Another interesting viewpoint is that if you read the book before the movie, you might have certain expectations for the movie which can lead to disappointment, neutrality or approval. 

Analyzing the critic, he is not an expert, so readers have to be critical. The best audience for these kind of reviews would be those who have read the book and watched the movie. He had several typos and did not even finish his sentence, so this decreases his credibility. However, I still enjoyed what he had to say, and he did bring up some valid points, but maybe not in the best English. The purpose of his post is to share his thoughts and feelings about the debate of books turned into novels, which is very prevalent in our culture. After seeing a movie based on a book, almost everyone leaving the theater will talk about the differences and which form they liked better. He posted his opinions on the internet so that everyone can stumble upon it (it was the first return on a google search of "one flew over the cuckoo's nest book vs movie"). He does a good job of persuading the audience that the book is better by emphasizing how movies always exclude or differ in many parts. And in the case of Cuckoo's Nest, the film added a basketball scene and makes the fishing trip spontaneous.

Do the books always win more audience approval than movies? I can't think of any movie that was significantly better than the book (Harry Potter...no. Hunger Games...no. To Kill a Mockingbird...no). Maybe The Notebook was better in movie form? Haha. What movie do you think is better than the book? Why do books become movies in the first place? It is all about the money and fame. The book pushes readers to watch the movie, and the movie encourages those who haven't read it to read it. Granted I think more readers will watch the movie, and less movie watchers will read the book. This is just because of society's emphasis on instant gratification. Movie watchers will not want to sit and read a book for a couple days if they have already watched the movie about the general plot of the book. However, some people are inspired to read the book if the movie was really good to receive more minute details. I did that with Twilight, not because the movie was really good, but I was curious in how Meyer crafted the characters in book form.


Personally, I feel like I'll always enjoy the books more so than the movies because I value the magical imagination that the book offers.