Movies vs. Books

Source

Whenever a movie adaptation of a book is released, the critics usually say, “the book was much better”. They don’t think that the movie does the book any justice. This is because movies are usually just a summary of the plot, a less complete version of the books they are based on. So why do books become movies if they’re rarely any good?

I found a review of the Hunger Games movie by the author of the Hunger Games series, Suzanne Collins. She describes perfectly how the movie and book are “individual yet complementary pieces that enhance one another”. If done properly, a movie can further increase the experience of the readers. Movies provide us with a more visual image. As Collins said, “it’s amazing to see things that are suggested in the book fully developed and so brilliantly realized through the artistry of the designers”. This creates a whole new experience for Hunger Games fans where they get to really picture the setting, the characters faces and all the other details describes in the book. However, some people may argue that they prefer the book. For example, they didn’t imagine the characters as the movie portrays them, which may lead them to think that the movie was not an accurate representation of the book. Therefore, the movies vs. books debate can be summed up by whether you prefer your own dreams or someone else’s. When you read a book, you get to decide what everything looks like; it is your own imagination, whereas a movie is someone else’s interpretation of the book. In the review, Collins also credits the director, Gary Ross for creating an adapation that is faithful in both narrative and theme. However, he’s also brought a rich powerful vision of Panem, its brutality and excesses, to the film. These are things that most of us cannot visualize when reading a book. The movie shows us the true extent of the inequality in Hunger Games. On the other hand, books provide us with a kind of emotional attachment that movies can’t seem to replicate. I love reading. Sometimes I get so absorbed in a good book that I feel like I know the characters already. Especially with a series like Harry Potter, most kids I know, myself included, “grew up” with the series. It is harder to foster this kind of bond with a movie. It is possible, but harder to do in just two hours.

Between the movie and the book, I think that more people have watched the movie than the book. That’s just the way our society is today. People are constantly rushing for time, rushing through life. Unless someone was deeply affected by the movie, or curious to know more, I don’t think they will read the book. However, my roommate is the kind of person who refuses to see a movie adaptation of a book unless she has read the book. Do you think watching the movie before reading the book will ruin the experience of reading the book?

The existence of a movie based on a book doesn’t change the value of the original for me. A good book will always be a good book, even if the film adaptations butcher the story. I accept the fact that some things do get lost in translation. To make a movie while still staying faithful to a book is probably one of the most difficult things to do. 

Comparing Art Forms

When there is a beloved series of books, such as the most popular Harry Potter, there is much pressure on the movie producers to make it good. People critique the movies because they have left something out that was originally in the book version. There is a blog specifically about the movie comparison to the book of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Pt.1 written by Emily Ann Ward (a young novelist). She argues that there is no comparison. She says the movie can’t fit everything so it seems “half-assed.” I think if the movie were to put everything that the book includes in the movie, we would die in the theater.  I believe many people think the book to movie comparison in general favors books because the power of the imagination is so much greater than anything we ever see in a movie. Personal interpretation and detail the author and the reader bring to the books cannot be substituted by a movie. Movies, as novels, are used for entertainment. Movies tell us how we should think of the story. There is no imagination involved. I am not bashing people who don’t read the books, in some ways they are better off. But are people being too hard on these movie makers?

There is also a lot left out of the movies because we don’t necessarily see how the book was written. We can’t see the author’s word choice, or intuitive metaphors. I believe this leaves out a large role we don’t necessarily think about when reading.  However is this giving books the unfair advantage? The relationship between author and reader is lost in movies between actors and directors. However, movies in their own art form depend on their actors and directors to create the end product. I think comparing literary art to motion picture art is much like comparing visual art to performing arts. They can both be interpreted differently, and look very different but are two completely different forms. Although there is usually a similar plot line between book and movie, it is left to the interpretation of the directors or the movie company to decide what their product looks like. Should movies really be judged based on their books? Are we really giving them a fair chance? If a piece of music based off of a sculpture or a painting had the same title, would we judge it the same way?

I personally don’t think we would see it the same. The similarity between book and movie tell a story similarly. However, one is in our imagination and one is played by actors in a movie. These actors and directors are interpreting the book in one way. I think that the Harry Potter movies are so compelling because they are based off of books. If someone didn’t know the movies were based off of books, the Lord of the Rings series for example (many people didn't know they were books), would they be more willing to accept the movie?