yay for self reflection! I'm def a classic "book is better" guy, so definitely appreciate hearing your thoughts. With Divergent, I honestly can't remember what I liked better. The book was...fine. And the movie was...fine. I never did finish that series. Loved your section on medium/moralizing. Almost surprised to not see Rory as one of the clips. So much quirk! Hah. I read a ton, probably more than most of my friends and I have lots of conversations about my friends and I very much try to not be condescending or superior because of that. I get comments from my friends all the time (very nice friends!) similar to "Oh I really respect how much you read", "it's so much better that you read a lot", etc. It's assumed that I'm higher-brow, more intellectual, etc because I read. And to defuse that (and try to stay humble!), I often say that my reading is akin to other people's TV-watching. How do I relax at night or on the weekend? I read!! I enjoy reading more, it makes me happier and it's just plain relaxing. TV-watching isn't my jam. I will watch some TV series but honestly? Only one I've watched all the way through this year is Wheel of Time (surprised? Haha). So I tell my friends that it doesn't make me better that I read instead of watching TV, because for me, it's what helps me relax. That all being said, is it important to be intentional in what media we consume? Absolutely and that's probably the subject for a different video! But briefly - for me at least, I know I want to be mindful about what I'm watching/reading, knowing it will affect my mind/mood/psyche. I want to read a variety of books, not just one type of fantasy or sci-fi. I want to educate myself, learn things, and grow my soul, and that means making choices in what I read and watch. Having a mix of books/shows/movies in the diet is important, just like in eating. Variety and moderation are very good things. So yes, I have my trashy fantasy and fluff books....and then I have my biographies, histories and science books! I have my quirky magic realism books and poetry....and then I have my spiritual and inspirational books. gah I was not brief. sorry for spiraling off topic!!
Yes both were "fine". Didn't love the movie, but did think it improved some things (I never even saw the second movie lmao). And I ALMOST put Rory but I've never actually watched Gilmore girls so I felt I couldn't actually make commentary 🤣 I actually don't think you are off topic- it's def related! I sort of covered some of it in my "are we in a post-literate society" vid, but there are absolutely considerations. I mean, I'm extremely limiting on screens for my children. It's pretty statistically proven that reading improves vocabulary and learning outcome skills later in life. So obviously some of the moralizing comes from a place that is truthful. However, I think in the *specific* cases of comparing adaptations, it's ok to remove the moralization, since in that way we are viewing the works as entertainment. And I totally agree- reading IS my entertainment activity!
Well, I certainly can't wait for your deeper dive on the societal moralization of consuming stories via the screen vs. reading (it's inevitable now, right?). You ALWAYS get me thinking, and I mean that as the highest of compliments. Moralizing aside, I field a lot of commentary about my books that I'm sure you hear around your house--friends, neighbors, extended family, usually jokingly, saying something like: "Can't wait for the adaptation/movie/series." So many seem to feel that getting adapted is the ultimate prize for a book, which I find interesting. Might be as simple as the fact that they know they're never going to read it, but they're still interested because they know me...? Thanks for always making the extra effort.
Omg YES I literally JUST talked about this with my husband! I find it fascinating that many people want an adaptation as a crown. Maybe I should have mentioned in this video since it’s relevant to my perspective here - my favorite books could never get an adaptation and that would not upset me in any way 🤣 I just don’t need it! However, I usually want it for the author themselves since most authors I think view that as a capstone (and obviously helps them gain popularity)
I almost wonder if that happens because film is the new, shiny tech on the block in comparison to writing. It's also way more accessible to general audiences because of its visual nature, so I think more people just like film better (evidenced by how film is way more popular than reading).
I think that it can also be related to the fact that people know that producing an adaptation is expensive and we know it. So, if a novel gets picked up for adapting, people are led to believe that it is regarded as a "good" work because the producers are willing to take the risk in order to make the adaptation. So, the fact that something gets adapted is kind of seen as validating of its worth. I do not think that it is necessarily true though because, as you said, many books are simply not suited for the visual medium but I believe that this might be how some people could see it.
I like your comments about the the different tools used in the different mediums. I think one of the advantages of books over movies is the ability for a reader to insert themselves into the story. It's easier to see yourself as the main character when your own mind is providing the imagery.
I think that really depends on the individual person who is reading or watching, honestly. Since different things will always come more or less easily to different individuals. And some people prefer to enjoy simply imagining themselves alongside the character(s), rather than in the place of any of them. (Not to mention the fact that not every person actually even wants[ or enjoys] to personally insert themselves into the stories that they consume, at all.) 😅😅 But, apart from those exceptions, you're not wrong!.😊 💜
Most movies just do not have the space to develop characters and worlds that novels do. Chances are high that those are two things you love about stories in general, which would explain why you always love the book more. John Truby had a cool class on how to translate books into movies and vice versa and talks alot about the strengths of each medium. This would also explain why you liked the Star Wars novel more than the movie.
I definitely agree. I like reading, on average, more than I like watching movies and TV. So, generally, I prefer the book over the adaptation. I think it's partially because I'm selfish and I like my vision of things more than seeing a bunch of other people's vision. I have a pretty vivid imagination and when I'm reading there is a movie playing in my mind, but this "movie" is partially my own creation since I'm filling in details that aren't actually in the book. No adaptation is going to 100% match my own vision is never going to be as detailed and immersive as my own imagination.
lol YES! I have a specific vision. Reading is active - it requires you to make decisions about how you view and interpret things, whereas cinema and tv *tend* to present a specific interpretation.
Especially in fantasy, where adaptations have to cut certain characters, scenes, etc, I normally appreciate all of those extra features that having the written word allows. This was really key with GoT to me, I loved the show but loved the books that much more when I got to see many actions/characters in far more detail
I largely agree. The added detail is really important to me and enriches my experience with the stories. I will say the biggest exception to me is The Princess Bride. I really enjoyed the book, but thought some of the changes made the movie flow better and overall more enjoyable. Admittedly though many of the best parts were pulled directly from the book and there were a few book details I wish had remained like the written version of Inigo and Westley's sword fight, it was masterfully written. Even though you prefer books what adaptations have you found to be your favorites?
Princess bride is such an interesting experience because the author wrote the screen play. So it’s almost in a category of it’s own. I’d say I like them the same amount, although I have a much bigger emotional connection to the movie since I watched it for decades before reading the book. My favorite adaptations are def princess bride, LOTR, hunger games, holes, and good omens!
This isn't a popular opinion, but I preferred the LotR movies (extended editions) over the book. I've just never been a fan of Tolkien's writing style. Too many exclamations! I also think the Bourne movies were better than the books - I watched the movie first and then tried to read the first book but couldn't get through it. But I agree with you in that I enjoyed the Star Wars prequel novels quite a bit - the extra scenes really helped flesh out the story and characters more.
I couldn't agree more. The LOTR books have major pacing issues. I like Tom Bombadil in and of himself, but he would have worked better in his own separate story instead of having him as a pointless detour. Also, do we really need 100+ pages just describing a tree?
I'm suddenly curious, does anyone know if the Star War prequel novelizations included extra scenes that were thought up by the novelist adapting the story or if they were adapted from scenes that George Lucas thought up for the movies but had to cut for runtime or pacing or other reasons, or what?
I am a thematic reader who loves monologues in books and while there are cases of it working amazingly, monologues or just reflection over certain ideas are harder to execute in films or to even be accepted in the first place to be included. Because of this an important aspect of storytelling could be absent for me, which could cause me to be less emotionally attatched to the film. Don't know if I worded that correctly
yes absolutely! This is exactly it. I think internal struggle as typed out on a page is something I love. While I think some actors can do a fantastic job at displaying that on screen, it's never quite the same.
I'm definitely a "the book was better" girl. I can admit when an adaptation is almost as good as the book tho: The Martian, The Expanse, Harry Potter. And I like the Hunger Games movies more than I like the books. My boyfriend is not a reader, and I feel like it gives us something to discuss when i compare adaptations to the books. I've almost convinced him to read The Expanse because he loved the show and wants to know what happens in the last 3 books!
Oooh I def like Harry Potter the books more than the movies, but I've heard the Martian movie is incredible (I need to watch it still! I loved the book and heard it's fantastic).
@@Bookborn the Martian movie is almost the exact same as the book. It is cool to see Matt Damon act out all the scenes from the book. It's worth your time to watch.
Thanks for articulating so well the difference between snobbery and personal preferences. I think it helps a lot to actually have a dialogue about what we like and dislike about books and their adaptations. I think it is generally quite ignorant to marginalize opinions because someone enjoyed another medium better though. So I'd also invite the people who dismiss such people outright to ask a question instead. Unless of course you're not doing an actual adaptation but a story inspired by the source material that you then completely turn inside out and upside down (looking at you Witcher and Snow White creators). In which case there is no dialogue to be had. But you already did a great video on that ;)
Love what you have to say here. I just had a moment recently which brought similar thoughts to mind. I finished reading Foe by Iain Reid and then watched the trailer for the upcoming adaptation... and in the trailer I was blown away by how emotionally intense and triller-y they made it which was such a shift from the slow-burn, atmospheric experience of the book, but then, as you say, I feel like it makes sense for a film adaptation to capitalize on the emotion? Idk. I guess bottom-line, like you say, it is nice to let artistic mediums do what they do best. It doesn't need to be apples-to-apples :)
Yes, SUPER good point about how movies need to capitalize on the emotional (and action-packed) parts of a book to better adapt to screen. I think for some books this certainly works better than others (One I think of is The Giver - I really struggled with that movie since the book is so introspective!)
100% agree with you on this. I've made this argument to friends numerous times who've always pooh poohed it on the basis that books are just "objectively" better. They will often claim that movies/TV will never have the complexity or depth of books without understanding that they are simply more used to and aware of the storytelling techniques in books because that is how we are taught. The reality is that although as a society we consume a lot of visual media we are not as film literate as we think as we simply aren't taught the techniques as much in school, which remains biased towards written forms of storytelling.
Perfect analysis! lets de-stigmatize entertainment formats . I especially loved how you look at both sides and how there are things like the emotion in music or an actor's portrayal of a character that can't be translated into a book. I absolutely love reading. It's my favorite medium. Being in my own head imagining what's happening and what characters are thinking. Still, my imagination can only bring me so far. For example, I can't imagine space battles as clearly and vividly as they can appear on screen. Sometimes when I read a description, I'm like, "what in the world does that look like?" I can't see it in my mind's eye. Really, there's just so much that you can gain from both film and book. It really just depends on what you want and what makes you appreciate one or the other.
yes, yes yes! I'm really bad at spacial awareness when reading (like I just can't imagine big places very well LOL) so I love seeing castles or cities/towns played out on screen because it helps me get scale.
I always appreciate the takes from your channel. As someone who has entered multiple fandoms (ASOIAF!) as a result of the HBO adaptation of the series. Not always, but sometimes, I have felt like a second-class participant in the fandom because of that. I like both, and look forward to future adaptations of other series I am neck deep in (hi Cosmere), and hope that fandoms can become more welcoming to future new fans that inevitably learn about these books from adaptations.
Unrelated to the point of the video, but the LOTR soundtrack was something I listened to while studying. I get weird 2nd hand stress now when I watch the movies because it reminds me of Finals week in college 😂
So, with some exceptions, I'm generally in the "book is better" camp for most cases. I think your point about getting into characters' heads is right on point. I also think reading is more of an active process than reading, so you tend to notice more of the details, since the author has to actually write them, whereas with a show or movie they may be hidden in the background where you don't notice them until you watch a TH-cam video pointing out the Easter Eggs. Also, reading being more active, I at least find for me, one reason I prefer the book to the tv show/movie often comes down to the book being a more immersive experience, where I can't pull out my phone and send a message to a friend or look at sports scores in the middle (this is also why I can't do audiobooks, since I'm too easily distracted and miss too much). Also, with a book, it's the creator of the story's intent. When an author writes a book, sure, they may have to make some concessions to a publisher to make it marketable. However, they aren't limited by the same time limits, technological restraints, and budgets in the way a show or film project is, so any cuts the author makes are more deliberate in their efforts to further the story they want to tell, whereas a director or showrunner might be having to make practical cuts. There were quite a few of these in WoT Season 2 I can turn to since it's so fresh in my head, but I think an obvious one would be replacing the sky battle with a battle on top of the tower and big CGI dragon, since the battle in sky would likely have been a bit goofy and the set-up really didn't put them in a position for them to have Rand, Perrin, and Mat riding in to battle together with the Dragon Flag. Or, with the Hunger Game movies, which I thought were fine adaptations, but you couldn't show everything Katniss faced in the Arena, so they had to pick the more notable ones and streamline. Or, Lord of the Rings having to cut some characters who actually played important parts in Frodo getting out of the Shire. Or, any number of adaptations having to combine a few characters who played important roles, but were only there briefly, and would've required casting more actors and expecting viewers to keep track of even more people (there were a number of these in Harry Potter, for example).
I totally agree that we have culturally moralized reading versus watching TV/movies, when they're both art forms with room for good and bad art abound. I also think that for me, a good adaptation has to add something to the conversation. Like, there has to be a reason for it to exist. I wouldn't like an extremely one-to-one or literal adaptation of most of my favorite books, plays, etc. I never even saw the LOTR movies until 2020, when I was 23, despite reading the books over and over from childhood, and I still connect to them in this really deep, powerful way because of how character driven they are, because of the music, the lush visuals, and the incredible acting. There are some changes I disagree with (Jackson's relationship to war in the films isn't really accurate to Tolkien's themes, and Sam would never ever ever ever leave Frodo, for example), they're the strongest adaptations basically in history because they have their own identity that honors Tolkien's works. They're more accessible--I love Tolkien, but understand that structurally and stylistically some people just do not connect with his books, and I get it. They're streamlined, they give extra narrative closure to certain characters, and they make choices that asserts a separate and powerful identity. I don't think they're better than the books, but they inhabit a separate enough space that I don't even know if that conversation needs to be had. That's kind of my ideal adaptation, you know?
Wow, I love SO MUCH what you have to say here, especially "There has to be a reason for it to exist". The best adaptations walk the fine line of honoring the books while saying something new. Although, I suppose a reason to exist could just be that it brings the novel to more audiences - tv/movies are by far more viewed than books read.
I think the only times I have found that I don’t love a book more are 1) Shakespeare (I like reading the plays as much but not more than performed) 2) If I HATE a book and they change the storyline for the adaptation so it doesn’t resemble what I read 😂 But my husband won’t read a novel. I’m thankful that adaptations exist so we can talk about the stories together.
Oooh ok so Shakespeare is interesting. Do we believe *reading* the plays is the original form or the theater being performed? I'd say normally we'd never say the script of Hamiliton is the original, but rather seeing it preformed. I think we read Shakespeare a lot because he was so influential and famous and most people won't get to see productions.
@@Bookborn I’m pretty even on my enjoyment of reading/watching Shakespeare. I love when I see a performance but they’re well written pieces of literature. I believe his intention was only for stage with the plays, but they nonetheless are wonderful pieces to read. Hamilton is a musical, so I’m not sure that was a good comparison.
@@BookbornShakespeare is properly consumed in its intended form (performance). This isn't even in the same vein as your videos topic, as when you read Shakespeare you are reading _the play_ not the book adaption of the play. The comparison is more similar to watching attack of the clones and reading the script of the movie, not the book adaption. There is a significant amount of nuance lost from reading the play vs watching a performance for every dramatic piece, but it's doubled (hyperbole used) with Shakespeare because of the pronunciation changes to English. There is a lot more rhyme and a lot more dirty jokes that a reader will not pick up on, but an actor can demonstrate via physicality, that a reader cannot get
That's actually what I"m trying to argue lol! The original commentor said that they didn't love the book as much is when it's Shakespear - but my point there was that technically reading it is the *adaptation* and not the original form, so I don't think it's really comparable here. They weren't made to be read, but rather performed.@@masmullin
I am definitely a book first person. Something I will add that makes me side with book readers more than film or tv is understanding the commitment needed to finish some of these books. You can half ass watching a TV show or movie, but finishing a book requires your undivided attention in a way that watching on TV does not. You cannot miss an important scene in a book, but you cam finish watching a tv show and miss a really important scene but still leave there go on social media and feel like you got the full experience.
This is simply untrue, especially for those readers who will outright skim or skip completely entire scenes they don't personally like or feel as engaged by. But even when readers don't skim or skip anything, they can still miss some things from time to time, because the same details just don't always jump-out-at and/or stick-in-the-forefront-of the mind for every person. It is absolutely possible to half-ass reading a book, too. How deeply either medium does or doesn't engage someone's attention can entirely depend on the individual person watching/reading & or on the individual moment they are doing so.
I think this is great insight. As an avid reader, I always felt like the odd one out when I'd say that I liked the film/TV adaptations better. But you're right - it's just my preferred storytelling style in general. The acting, the visual effects, the stunts, the music, etc. all add something to the underlying story.
This is fascinating to me as someone who is an equal fan of both film and reading. Sometimes, what I prefer is a toss-up, but with my favorite adaptations I tend to appreciate the techniques used. However, I'm becoming more of a "the book is better" person because with books you're more-or-less getting the author's original intent (I know publisher's might have an influence on less prolific authors' work), whereas with film/TV adaptations, there's always going to be a higher level of "do what the people like" that can potentially negatively impact the work. Traditionally I've said I prefer the LOTR films to the book, but now I'm not so sure; I think it's a case where, as a film lover, the experience of watching the films and hearing the music is so euphoric that I might prefer it to reading the book. There's also something like Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban where I'd say the book is better, but I watch the film much more often than I re-read the book because of how much I love the atmosphere it captures along with the cinematic choices made.
You hit the nail on the head with this! The phrase has been overused, especially against good adaptations. Now when people bring it up, in earnest over what they think are legitimately bad adaptations, people see elitism and the obnoxious Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, interjecting their gatekeeping where it isn't welcome. I much prefer Return of the King in book form, as I do not think the film does the story justice, but I hold my tongue. I find some of the changes almost criminal, but despite that, I still find the film (mostly) wonderful and it keeps capturing the spirit of Tolkien's world, even if they bungle a few things. I love the book and films of Fellowship and The Two Towers almost equally. They both have their strengths, though if pushed into it, I'd have to hand it to the books for being "better." I know all of this is subjective, but a lot of the changes in adaptations in the last decade or so seem perplexing to me. The lower viewership and small (or shrinking) box office for many of these productions are a good measure that the changes are not welcome (though there are probably many other factors as well). Character backstories being completely re-written, unnecessary updates to the era it's set in, very contemporary (and not timeless) dialogue that will make it a product of it's time, and so on.
Books are an active medium. As a reader you supply the elements that make it work in your imagination - casting, direction, etc all with unlimited budget and resources. It's tailor made for you, because you an active participant in the story. An adaptation to a movie/series will always be one person or group of individuals interpretation. It can never compete with the 'movie in your head'. No adaptation could ever compete with that. I think this becomes more apparent the more you are invested in a good book. The trick then is to be able to disconnect the adaption from the book and just see it on it's own terms rather than think about which is better. Of course that is easier said than done sometimes, especially if you have been waiting years to see your favourite book come to life.
I don't think anything you're saying is incorrect, really-but I would quibble that not everyone always has to be so attached to their own personal visions of a story, even when they really really love it, that they are completely incapable of ever appreciating someone else's just as much or sometimes even more. 😊💖
I'm definitely a book is always better person. Even when I rarely read, I would find the books better, although it would help with the characters in my mind as I'm not a very visual reader. There are many reasons I think, but mainly it's the bigger scope, it's the extra stuff which either wasn't in the show/film that's clearly described (how people were feeling etc. I would say on adaptations, the ones that seem to be well received are the ones with a close relationship to the author, I'm thinking early Game of Thrones/ House of the Dragon, One Piece, Sandman etc
yes, I actually once plotted author involvement in a production and then it's ratings, and for the most part, the more an author is involved, the higher regarded it is. Adapters...take notes 🤣
Awesome! A conversation that I could actually add to. 😅 As both an avid reader, and an actor, I feel like I have a bit of a unique perspective. I can absolutely watch movies/tv and appreciate what they’re doing. And occasionally, I’ll like an adaptation better (but usually only if I don’t like the book), but most of the time, I still believe that the book is better. I’ll have to think more on this and formulate more thoughts. Great discussion. -T
I think you made a really interesting point in the moralizing of reading. And I think that really goes to the heart of the matter. A lot of people want to just enjoy a story, and film is a much more enjoyable experience. It doesn't require the work that books do. That being said books allow for a level of depth that the movies so often miss. Revenge of the sith is my favorite star wars movie. But the book is so so good. It goes in to so much more detail that movies miss. There is a scene during Anakin and obi wans fight that is partially edited out, but the book explains what is happening and gives great insight into why obi wan came out on top. But even though the book is generally better. I do live and greatly appreciate a good adaptation
Definitely an interesting topic. One book that I enjoyed much less than the movie was "2010: Odyssey Two". I felt the movie did a much better job of leaving it open what the Monolith was and how much of this was thin distinction between Divine Being and Really Powerful Aliens. Going with your Star Wars theme, the book of "Revenge of the Sith" was so phenomenal to me (which I read before seeing the movie) that the movie was a bit of a letdown. Even though I did think the movie was well done, the novelization was probably one of the best I have ever read. One of the most haunting lines in the book for me was; "This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker. Forever." The context of how that was presented was just fantastic. Another interesting one for me was "12 Monkeys." I actually think the film did a better job of conveying the vagueness of whether events were really happening or were part of a psychosis. Which was odd because I would have thought the book would have been a bit better at that. Finally, in terms of horror, I think the recent Halloween novelizations were much better than the films in a lot of ways. But, all this said, I -- apparently like yourself -- tend to fall into the camp of "the books are better."
I usually prefer the book, but I still like to see adaptations because they give new options for how I can visualize things from the books. Fan art is also great for this, and it is also why I would like to see my favorite novel adapted multiple times, not just once. I think getting in the heads of characters can be a double edge sword, sometimes it makes the narrative better, like in the Shining, but sometimes it can be grating like, with a lot of Wheel of Time characters.
I think one of the most frustrating things about the WoT adaptation for me is that there WAS so much they could've tweaked to improve the characters/story from the book because of the unnecessary descriptions/being in people's heads, but they somehow decided not to focus on fixing any of that lol
Books have a far different way to tell stories. Movies/TV can't get "into the character's head" as well (and I really like that line). They require the use of other cues (music, looks, etc) which don't always convey the thoughts and emotions the same way (sometimes no way to adequately do it). I also think the concept of "Head Canon" also plays a role. When I read the book(s), I get into the world and my imagination creates what I see in my head. When the adaptation hits the screen, it may be completely be different, which will clash with what I liked in my own head. I will also say that there are times that adaptations have done FAR better jobs then my head canon has... and those will change the way I see it. So, a give and take.
Yes, yes YES. We can interpret things how we want, but when it gets to screen, it's often a single interpretation. If that's different than what you thought, it can be hard to reconcile. Although I agree on the other hand: there have been things about adaptations that made me like something more than I did in the book (one I can think of off the top of my head is the character of Nina from Six of Crows)
I think this is one of the reasons Enders Game comes up short as a movie. Aside from having to accelerate the storyline, we don’t know much of what Ender is thinking. I don’t dislike the movie by any means but the book is better IMO.
For me, I know people who genuinely struggle to absorb written information, or who simply aren't fast readers[ and have busy-busy lives] and thus just don't have the spare time available that would be necessary for them to dedicate to reading anything-so that's why they gravitate more toward a movie or tv series. And that's why I always wish that my favorite books would get as faithful adaptations as possible. Because I want them to be able to enjoy the same stories as me, on their own terms, not only through the lens of me telling them about it. But, on the other hand, I personally really appreciate both film(when I was younger I dreamed of attending film school) and writing(which ended up being basically my life's passion though not profession) so on my independent own it just entirely depends-and I actually can enjoy seeing other people's visions and/or reimaginations of the story just as well as I enjoy seeing a faithful one, simply in completely different ways.😊
I always think and try to experience them as different things, or one based on another as opposed to a complete recreation of the book. Same for comparing games to films or even films to shows.
Love this video. I dig the introspection and the insights it reveals. I’d love to see a follow up video on this that talks about how to draw comparisons between two separate mediums. They really are apples and oranges, so outside of one’s preference in medium, I’d like to hear more about how you judge a book by its own criteria against a movie with its own separate criteria.
I love books and i love well done adaptations and rarely view them in competition with each other. Best example being LOTR, where i was utterly addicted as a child to the books but have also watched the films a million times and love those too.
I love this! I am someone who does love books and film about equally and there are a decent number of adaptations that I do like better than the books (Mockingjay is a good example!) or one’s that I love equally for different reasons (LotR) so for me when I say “the book was better” I usually do mean “that was not a great adaptation”
Being morally superior is a fine aspiration. It is a guide for those of us who have not experienced the world and a tool to fight against ignorance when you become better as a whole.
love the reference to the Attack of the Clones novelization, all those books were written with only the script and not the final movie and yet each one of them was so much better to me as a kid than the movies.
I had actually the same feelings about "attack of the clones"! Being from Germany, for some reason the book came out first here, as far as I remember, so I also read it first. It definitely added some depth to certain aspects of the film, which was a nice thing to have (also, I was like sixteen back then and super into Star Wars, so I just grabbed any content you could get back then :-)
As both an avid reader and someone that has worked in film/tv I find the book to be better around 50% of the time, the book and adaptation to be about equal around 30% of the time, and the adaptation to be better about 20% of the time. I think a reason why the book is often regarded more highly is that the story was designed for that specific medium whereas the adaptation was not. Some stories will suit the other mediums more than others, and the ones that don’t will require more changes, which may upset fans of the original. I think it’s a matter of execution. With an adaptation you are given tools to work with, but are also constrained with what you can do with them. It takes a lot of talent to identify what worked about the original, what will work on screen, and reconcile those two.
Interesting take! I am a book is better kind of person as well, and l guess l do like reading more - l love to savour the words on the page and also all the nuances and details that you can't possibly put in a movie (tho maybe in a series...), and also with the book l get to decide what characters look like and interpret how they behave - it's *my* movie, my personal take on what's going on. I do also like watching movies, but l think with adaptations it's always so tricky because they need to get so many things 'right', while translating the story to a whole different medium. Imo, the most essential thing is they get the characters and the spirit/feel of the book. It doesn't matter so much if they change things (which they have to do to adapt it), but it needs to feel true to the character and the book - like "okay, that didn't happen in the book, but l like it/it is something that could have happened" vs "she would *never* do something like that"... Harry Potter didn't have green eyes in the movies and that didn't really matter, but look what they did to Faramir...! (I liked the movies overall, but was so mad at that...) The new Dune had additional scenes, and things left out, and other changes, but it was fine, the atmosphere was pitch perfect - it FELT right... a great adaptation can bring a story to life in a way that you never imagined, and becomes another way to experience a favourite story.
I've always found reading books to be more engaging than watching movies. Watching movies is a very passive experience for me. The visuals tell me exactly what things look like, the actors tell me what the characters are like, the music tells me what I should be feeling at any given moment, etc. With a book, I find it's making my brain work more. It's not passive. The writer can't literally describe and detail everything, so my brain fills in the gaps, makes it's own interpretations. The only time I think I definitively preferred the movie over the book was with Peter Benchley's Jaws. I am a Benchley fan, but Spielberg created magic on the screen that just wasn't there in the novel (and the movie had a much better ending).
Film is probably my favorite art medium so it's very mixed for me. I might like the Dune movie better than the book, for example. I think HP3 and LOTR are in the same category for me. I just got a lot more from the movie than the respective books. So definitely agree!
I've noticed that judgy moralizing in myself. 🙃 I enjoyed reading a recent Reddit thread asking: Which adaptations are better than the books? My favorite answer to that question? Big Fish.
For me, it comes down to how long a story requires to be fully told. The least amount of time you're probably going to spend with a book is around 4-5 hours, but most are magnitudes more than that. The longest movies I can think of are about 3 hours. Two recent examples that got me thinking about this are A Man Called Ove vs A Man Called Otto and Where the Crawdads Sing. Ove's neighbor/best friend/rival gets about 5 minutes of screen time in the movie, whereas he is completely fleshed out in the book. You get so invested in their complicated relationship that the climax of the book really earns its emotional impact. Watching the movie, my wife was like "Oh, why does he care so much about that guy? I thought he hated him". In Crawdads, the story is a lot more straightforward. I thought the book was decent, but I thought the movie was better paced. A picture is worth a thousand words in this instance, showing her nature drawings was much more effective than describing them. Showing her isolation was the same. I'm probably about 80/20 "The book was better". I don't think most adaptations get enough time to translate what's on the pages, but if it went the opposite direction, I don't think something like Toy Story 3:The Novelization would be worth the pages it would take, but the movie is enjoyable for what it is.
I think The Princess Bride is an interesting case. They are both excellent, but they both work well in their individual mediums. Each tells it's own frame story about a book and the story within the book. In the book, the frame story works in a way that wouldn't work as a movie. It has humor that wouldn't work as well in a movie. The movie is it's own version that is excellent as a movie, but wouldn't work as well as a book. I think it really helps that the author wrote both the book and the screenplay, and played to the strengths of both.
‘The book is better’ is a judgement that is easy to dismiss as dismissive. And superior. And snobbish. And so on. The book does have the innate advantage of being a superior storytelling medium which caters to every sense we devote to consuming a tale. It invites our imagination, challenges our comprehension, engages our thoughtfulness and invariably activates resonance. An adaptation on screen of a book comes with prerequisites. And nowadays, these prerequisites seem to be getting invoked more and more vehemently and any pushback, no matter how objective it may be, is zealously caterwauled into categories where the self appointed defenders of adaptations can then dismiss it with their own clearly displayed logical failings, as a form of projection. It’s one thing to note ‘a matter of taste’ because that is an inarguable absolute. A consumer likes what they like. Preference does not beget clarity of judgement. Or make for a convincing argument, much less a rigorous conclusion in favour of adaptations. SFF works also often have added hurdles in adaptation because there is so much more to ‘get right’ beyond the conceptual… and much of it depends on the Director’s Vision, as it relates to their understanding of the source material and how they are prepared to disseminate it. An adaptation does not exist that is ‘better’ than the source material. They exist on two levels. - Authentic Evocation, be it through slavish faithfulness or emotional resonance in the face of major changes. - Consumer Capture, where an adaptation in a visual medium can cut through in ways the demands of reading will not, because reading asks a consumer to do more, by definition, in their consumption. Do you like the adaptation better because it was easier to consume? Because it was well cast enough to complement your imagination, or even supplant it? Because it was a good enough work of art to be judged on its own terms, as opposed to how closely it hewed to its source? None of these things make the adaptation of the written word in a visual medium, superior. No matter how they excel on their own terms, the result will remain obliquely asymptotic to the line it plots on the axes of its creative ambitions. Just because a visual adaptation resonates with readers, does not guarantee it succeeds overall. Similarly, while a powerhouse performance may make an otherwise unfaithful adaptation watchable, it is certainly no sign of superiority or improvement. I will conclude with 2 extremes in terms of reputation to emphasise the distinction. To Kill a Mockingbird is an Adaptation that succeeds on every level. A respectfully scripted transference to film. Powerful central performances, highlighted by Gregory Peck. Is it better than the book? Not even close. At the other end of the spectrum, let me use an example similar to one Bookborn invoked. A novelisation of a film. We’re muddying the waters here because the Source Material is the film script. The novel has been extrapolated from that, not the other way around. The film is Hard Target. A forgettable Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle from the early 1990’s which was itself a ‘take’ on The Most Dangerous Game - a short story rooted in the psychology of man hunting man as he would an animal. Even at this level of base nihilism and exploitative depravity, the novelisation works better than the film. Not because of any superior skill being displayed by the author, as opposed to the filmmakers. It is merely the nature of the medium lending itself to a superior product, regardless of the level of the narrative. A book, comprehensively consumed, will never not be superior to any adaptation it inspires.
Are books truly a "superior storytelling medium"? You've stated this as though it is absolute, but I'm not really convinced this is true. I think that is something entirely dependent on the person and how art moves and captures them. I have never read a book that has created the same emotional resonance as the combination of music and dance, and I'm not sure I ever will. Plenty of people I'm sure feel the same way about paintings, film, theatre or manga. Whatever, really. Who are you or any of us to say what the "superior artform" is? Nobody. And to think like that just shows a level of arrogance beyond anything I can comprehend, really. I don't really mean to get too personal, but the way you've essentially denigrated other media and the people it emotionally touches just because it has less value to YOU? I mean, come on.
@jakerockznoodles Don't apologise for getting too personal. Your selective comprehension helps me reinforce my point. Enjoyment is no definitive evaluation of quality, only of the consumer's capacity to render judgement. As I made extremely clear, people's tastes are absolutes and those preferences are what they are. What they are not, is a judgement on the level of art being produced. By all means, like what you like. But don't deceive yourself, even if the music told you to do so. If art was meant to only be consumed by the superior means, then The Arts would not have evolved to incorporate inferior, but no less enjoyable mediums. The fact of one thing should not serve to invalidate the function of the other. I enjoy The Arts both critically & emotionally. However that enjoyment does not preclude me from recognising, with respect to the question of multimedia adaptations, the book (when consumed comprehensively) is always better.
I think it’s a matter of catharses. For me, reading isn’t super easy (I’m dyslexic) so I tend to savor books so that by the end I feel like I’ve been on a much more intimate and impactful journey. Films are easy to watch and be entertained by but since they pose no challenge and can be enjoyed in one sitting, I rarely get the same feeling of catharses that I do when I read a book. This is true despite the fact that I have a lot of appreciation for the craft of film (my dad is a filmmaker so I have some of that background knowledge). Additionally, in general, a novel can communicate a more intricate plot, characterization, and themes. As much as I love film, it simply asks less of it’s audience.
For me from a pure entertainment standpoint the movies take the win since there's a lot I don't like about the books. The Dune series has done a far better job at holding my attention when it comes to the writing than LoTR oddly enough.
I guess one of the advantages of writing is all the CG, special effects, cast/crew salaries, etc don’t cost anything lol. The author is only limited by their own imagination. There’s also a great deal of minutia that can be difficult translate into film. A book doesn’t exactly have time constraints attached.
Also with movies you have to deal with the rating system and at least with American movies they largely aim to get a PG 13 rating and NC 17 is a no go for studios. Also the studios often want movies they can sell international which publishers largely don't worry about.
While two of these aren't fantasy, I always cite GONE WITH THE WIND, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and THE GREEN MILE as three examples where I think the film was better than the book.
Exceptions that spring to mind: authors with great ideas but haphazard writing like Philip K Dick, authors who seem to be subconsciously writing for film like Michael Crichton, sprawling stories that benefit from streamlining and faces to attach to all the names like Song of Ice and Fire (until they ran out of source material). But my favorite is a film adaptation so impeccably rendered in cinematography, music and performances that it actually is better than the book: "To Kill a Mockingbird."
The major problem with PKD is he will just drop storyline in the middle of book. From an adopting his books the problem is along with the first problem he would pit dozens of ideas in one book, also he didn't write much if any action in his books (a lot of Amy Science fiction movies are action movies) and most importantly he has three types of endings confusing, depressing or both.
I prefer both the LOTR films and Tolkien's books. Unfortunately most adaptations of books in either shows or films are not good (looking at you Wheel of Time). Good insights btw👍
I read books and they turn into little snippets of movies and then long imagined verbal introspections from a character's POV. If i'm enjoying a book i'll usually stop in a scene to jsut imagine what is going on from non-pov character's perspectives. How they feel about things. Text can have such a density of information - 'A Picture Paints a thousand words' is the very opposite of my experience. Illustrations contain almost no information to me unless i've previously read what the Illustration is about. The details, the density and being in a character's head are why I have such a difficult time with manga and comics... I just can't seem to turn the medium into a 'movie' in my head without all the text, the visuals from a comic or manga really don't seem to help with that at all. I can mostly glean that extra information from the voices and facial expressions in video adaptations. I've noticed that I just don't enjoy visual art or music as much, or not in the same way as most people. Whenever i visit a gallery the little card next the picture is *always* the thing that grabs my attention and has all the interesting information. Probably nothing really special about any of this... it'll likely just depend on how thrilling you found books when you were a small child compared to other media. I remember the books i'd read from 3-4 years old but I don't recall any films until several years later and only have a few very vague memories of doctor who and other TV things from when i was that age. Edit: An addendum. A lot of the book was better stuff might be because a book has to be awful, truly awful for me to not enjoy it well enough to finish and to have a good time Whereas I jsut don't have the patience for anything other than outstanding film and tv. I think that a lot of The book was better might come from that. I can enjoy a meh book a lot but if i try to watch the adaptation I just don't manage to enjoy it at all.
I have a take, not sure if it's hot or cold but it's a take. I believe the term "the book is better" is a fact. And I say this as a guy who studies and absolutely loves film. What I mean by this is that the book is automatically the best as it is the purest form of the story. It contains the true essence of the themes, nuance and energy of the story that people love. The book is so good that they decided to adapt it into other mediums. It's okay to like the other stuff more, hell I do most of the time but the book will always be the true version at the roots. This is why I think the phrase "the book is better" should die as it is already obvious. It's borderline impossible to adapt one medium to another 1:1, especially all the parts that people like and judge it for that. That shouldn't be the case. We can't compare them, what we should do is judge the adaptation for how well it captured the "essence", "tone" and "message" of the base material. Imma use children's books in my example as that's the only thing I read :/ The Wimpy Kid movies are not only loyal to the story of the books but also capture their spirit well, thus why they were popular (and why I prefer them to the first 3 books)(Good Adaptation). The Captain Underpants movie is not loyal to the story of the first book but it captures the essence of them so perfectly that it became one of my favourite animated movies (Good Adaptation). The Middle School movie is a decently made movie that follows the general story of the book but it strays so far from the nuance of the themes and characters of the book that it becomes unrecognisable, and is seen by the public as just another teen coming of age movie (Bad Adaptation) Does this make sense or am I tripping?
It’s not just a case of which is better, it’s that the stories are different. Characters get combined, or lines given to other characters, or whole story arcs eliminated or presented in a different manner to adapt the story for TV/Movies. If the source of the story is a book, it’s ‘better’ because it’s the actual story the author intended. Doesn’t mean I didn’t love the LOTR movies, or Harry Potter movies or The Magicians TV adaptations.
For me it always comes down to maximizing the story that can be told. And so often lots of dialogue and entire scenes have to be removed for movies. This isn’t to say movies can’t be awesome. Just that if I have to pick I’m always gonna prefer the movies for the maximization of the story that I get to read.
I generally like books more than the tv or movie adaptation because books can provide deeper characterization and more detail than a movie/tv can. I think the major advantages film has over books are the musical score and the story can be consumed quicker, which makes it easier to repeatedly consume content that you love. Lord of the Rings is one of the few stories where I prefer the movie to the books, and it has the best film score I’ve ever heard. That isn’t a coincidence.
As someone who went to film school and has been in love with the art of film for most of my life, and only started reading in my early 20's a few years back, I think 95% of adaptations are worse. It isn't about preferring one medium over another for that percentage imo, it's about the adaptations loosing what the original story was about thematically and emotionally, while not replacing it with anything on the same level, or using its medium to make up for losing what the medium of books have to offer. The other 5% I believe probably come down to which medium you prefer for that specific story even when they are pretty faithful adaptations. LOTR, Goodfellas, Godfather, To kill a Mockingbird, The Silence of the Lambs, I'm thinking of ending things. (I somewhat enjoyed the Hunger games first book but the movie was worse purely because of how it overused shacky cam and because it was PG13 ((I believe)) and my mind could imagine anything when reading it, it felt so sanatised.) There is also maybe a small percentage of adaptations where the movie and book are so different that it's really just about which story you prefer. Children of Men, Jurassic Park, The haunting of Hill house (though that is more a very different story using the title, some character names and a very few scenes from the book). In the end, if a movie doesn't replace what is lost by changing medium, or worse it just takes out things from the story to make it short enough for film without adapting the pacing, themes and events around the changes, then the book will always be better IMO as someone who loves both books and movies a lot. Edit: I think a large part of why so many movies are worse, is because generally when it's 1 or 2 authors working on a book they put their passions, life, thoughts, everything into those books. Especially for authors who take a while to release books. Wheras films in Hollywood at least are a business from the start of writing a script to the release of the film. A writer only has a certain time to write the adaptation because casting has already begun, location scouting has begun. The studio is probably already planning on the release month/season. Directors, producers, everyone is being hired. And they often hire people available, that fall in the price range and work well with how the studio functions. Once it starts it basically can't stop. And all of these people are working on multiple jobs throughout the year. Especially script writers who are always focusing on different stories and trying to be as quick as possible while still doing the job well enough to get paid. Because if they don't then they can't eat or afford a living.
I prefer audiobooks to books and books over films/movies. I am not much of a movie watcher these days like I was when I was a teenager or in my 20s. I’ve been an avid reader since I was a teenager and switched to audiobooks about 5 years ago. Audiobooks helps me with names of characters and places because my learning disability. I do still watch fantasy adaptations even if they aren’t what I expect or want them to be.
I think the only time I've ever preferred an on screen adaptation was Outlander, and that's mostly because I feel Gabaldon's storytelling is too meandering and she needs a more aggressive editor 😅 I'm typically a "book is better" kind of girl. I prefer the level of detail, insight, and world building we get in books, especially in fantasy. I also feel like screen adaptations don't follow magic system rules as much as I want them to (Wheel of Time is a good example of this). I probably used to be a bit snobby about my preference for book over TV/film but now I think I'm a lot more understanding and accepting of people having different preferences.
This perception can also change from genre to genre. Fantasy and sci-fi just generally have more world building and plot than other genres, so the adaptation already has a big hurdle to overcome. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my favorite movies of all time and I think that the movie is better than the book and here the book is much easier to adapt. The Exorcist is also a great example because the film obviously benefits from being much scarier in a visual medium. In general, there are so many book adaptations that we don't even realize are adaptations. The other factor is how different the movie is from the book, because some film adaptations can improve a mediocre book, but I think that can only work if you're not too emotionally invested in the book for example by being in the fandom. I much prefer the film version of Blade Runner, although the book is great too, but I'm not so emotionally invested in the book that the changes bother me. With things I've loved for years, like ASOIAF, I'm much more critical of changes. The Expanse is also one of the few show adaptations where both are equally good because the book authors worked closely with the show writers so they could improve things that didn't work as well in the books. Bonus point: I finished season 1 of the WoT adaptation and liked it while I dnfed the first book three times after 100 pages. Do what you want with this information xD
You made it past hundred pages good for you. I didn't even get that far. That said I think another major issue adopting a book to a movie is also the writing. I have seen a few videos about the Stephen King's tropes which as a constant reader I can tell is based solely on the movies because they never mention how many flashbacks he does (in The Shining you get the whole history of Jack and Wendy's relationship through flashbacks before we get to the hotel) and he can sometimes over write. One of his most beloved books The Stand he gives page after page of backstory for a character to die less than a page later after all that history. On the up side when he isn't over writing he can really make a one scene character feel vary real and make you care about them.
books stimulate imagination and your mind fills in the picture in your head with the best of what you can imagine. sometimes motion pictures cannot live up to our expectations.
What's most important to me about adaptations is maintaining the themes of the original story. I honestly think stories SHOULD be told in more than one way. There are hundreds of versions of Romeo and Juliet, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, etc. I think that's great. A core part of the human experience is sharing stories with each other, passing them on, building them into something new. The problem for me begins when an adaptation starts throwing important themes out the window. Like, a feminist work being adapted into something that doesn't stay consistent with the original feminist messaging at all? Uh, no. Not for me.
I usually prefer the book version of a story for the details, but I'll watch the film (or TV) adaptation more frequently because of limited time and my slow reading pace.
I like both books and movies. What I enjoy more is the medium with more detail. That is the reason why I like the house of dragons better than the fire and blood because it was only a section of the book. I just watch the mini series adaptation of Sharp Object and I love it as much as the book because they are about the same density of details and atmosphere. This only applies to equally competent source material and adaptation.
Usually David Fincher is the only director who makes the movie better than the book! He usually gets the author of the books to write the screenplay and even often add an extra chapter! He doesn't exactly do fantasy, but his films are so atmospheric they feel like fantasy! Although my favorite of his films, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, has a whole book series and tv adaptation if you want to delve deeper!
I am an avid reader. Have been since childhood. There aren't many times a show/movie holds a candle to what it is adapting, and some books really don't work as visual media (I actually think Terry Pratchett is a good example of that. As much as I'm glad some of his works were adapted, and as well as Good Omens has done... typically I don't think they adapt well) But there are exceptions. I remember watching Divergent. Interesting premise. Interesting world building. Bit simple and not quite... right. Read the first book. And honestly, the movie was better. The movie was a 6-7/10, the book maybe a 5. Readable, but didn't draw me in. I've never even watched the sequels, bc the potential is so clearly wasted. The problem is that "non-readers" are INCREDIBLY insecure about it, imo. They don't want to know that they might be missing out. Are we going to pretend that the people upset at "the book is better" have also read the book? Because I think that is a rarity :P They get defensive, then readers get annoyed and the toxicity starts. And I think the fandoms tend to get the blame, which is unreasonable. Imagine joining a club, limiting your participation to one small part of that club, then complaining about all the things you don't engage with. At least book readers are giving opinions based on comparison :P Sure people can just let the nonreaders enjoy their little corner in peace. But when the "nonreaders" (and their adaptations) are essentially the representation of the "club" to outsiders, I don't think it's unreasonable to care or complain. I get the point on moralising, with books somehow given moral weight. But honestly, I think that's overblown. I love plenty of shows. I think certain genres even work better in visual media, and some require it (I love me a musical. You cant read a musical. Well I can't read a musical, I'm sure some musical savants could :P) I don't think shows like Hustle or Leverage would work as well in novel form either. (both shows based on a premise of "robin hood" conmen tricking people. I'd recommend ANYONE watching the pilot episode of Hustle for a masterclass in how visual media can tell EXTREMELY clever stories... though I watched it when it first aired a long ass time ago ^^) So my preference for reading doesn't come from a place of contempt. There are things that work INCREDIBLY well in visual media. And there are things that are very difficult to pull off. Part of that is that reading is a collaboration, while watching a movie is a passive experience. When you read, your imagination is filling in areas that the author left blank. A good writer can do this with intention, providing context and clues for a reader to build upon. They can rely on shared memes, cultural tropes and common assumptions. And they can play with these expectations, subvert them. The downside can be when an author "micromanages" too much and the prose becomes a dry documentary of events :P Or worse, when an author simply wishes to lecture their captive audience and abandons the pretence of entertainment entirely (Terry Goodkind did this more and more in his later books. It makes some truly great stories with compelling characters VERY difficult to read) And I love Jenny Nicholson too! Funny, insightful and never unpleasant. Been ages since she's popped up on my feed too >
Yeah! That one is probably closest to even since I have so much love for the movie. However, it's also a weird case where the author wrote the screenplay which is rare.
I am definitely a book is better person. There are so many examples of why even with good adaptations... for example the movie of The Martian - the book got the comedic timing of moments better. For example, I remembered that the line about Aquaman talking to Whales and Dolphins being dropped as a 1 paragraph chapter right after NASA had just determined Watney was alive on Mars and they're sitting around discussing what must be going through his mind at that moment - cue page break, new chapter - 1 paragraph, page break - I legit laughed my ass off at that moment reading the book the first time because it was just perfectly dropped into place. In the film they had that line as something he said during selection in a flashback/video of why he was suited to the Mars mission. None of the comedy survived. The one time I will generally consider even debatable as an exception to the "the book was better" is The Lord Of The Rings. Yes the books are masterpieces, absolute works of beauty and I will even say they are without doubt better than the films but also the books can get quite tedious, the lyrics of some of the songs take several pages to get through and whilst I love Tolkein's writings I don't perhaps need lyrics to just about every song sung by any character at any point in the saga. Neither do I need Tom Bombadil. I love the books, I adore the books. But, if I need a fix of Tolkein? I tend to watch the extended editions of the trilogy.
If you have not already, I highly recommend reading the novelization of revenge of the Sith. One of the best Star Wars books out in my opinion and way better than the movie even though I love love love the movie despite its many flaws
I think for me is that I get too attached to the way I build the world and the characters in books inside my head. So when an adaptation inevitably fails to capture what was in my head while reading the book, I am disappointed. This is of course more applicable to when I have read the book before seeing the film so I'm usually I'm more open when I see the adaptation first then read the book.
I will say, I do think there's some degree of validity to the moralized perspective. And I say this as a film professional. In film and TV there's a *lot* you can hide behind visual appeal. If you have a charming/talented/attractive actor, if you have an amazing cinematographer, if you have really good visual effects - you can hide massive plot holes and lack of character development with it all being easily forgiven by viewers. Any serial film series (the MCU, Transformers, Fast and the Furious, etc) has plenty evidence of this. That's mostly because the writing is one of many aspects of film. On the other hand, it's much more difficult to hide plot holes in books because you're reading the plot - the writing is all there is. Now while I don't begrudge anyone enjoying "turn off your brain and look at the pretty pictures" entertainment (I mean, my IMDB is filled with titles like that), it doesn't require as much critical thinking to enjoy. That's actually kind of the point of it. It's escapism without effort - the kind so many people desperately want lately. But there is something to be said for film and TV adaptations that do more than just show pretty pictures - because consistent storytelling and character driven plots make film and TV so much more entertaining. As you've been making videos on - The Wheel of Time (currently 814k words translated into 16 hours of visual media) is a good example of turning off your brain and enjoying the individual moments in a show that looks pretty nice. Look too closely at any of it, and nothing makes sense - the climaxes aren't earned, and are rarely even hinted at. But then you have Lord of the Rings (481k words translated into 9 hours of visual media - on par with Wheel of Time) which is not just a visual masterpiece, but the story is wonderfully logical, character driven, and has deeply earned climactic moments. Again, I have no problem with people enjoying the Wheel of Time. There's a place for that sort of entertainment. But when I say the books are better, I mean the story is better - it's more logical, more consistent, is character driven, etc - all things the show could easily be if done by a more skilled writing team/ show runner. And it's disappointing to see it miss the mark so far. But I digress. The point is, written media takes much longer to consume, on top of not having the crutch of visuals. So when it's good, it's really good. But film and TV has a lot more that goes into it - so there's a lot more chances to forgive when one of the many parts falls short.
Yeah, I like different mediums, and tend to look for different things in those mediums. Books translated to movies or shows tend to lose depth, or gain fluff. You can make them more immersive in the move, but that doesn't always happen. Books _do_ provide more wiggle room for interpretation, though, since they're drawn in your head.
I actually like a lot of adaptations more than the books. Get ready to hate me: • Lord of the Rings • Wheel of Time • One Piece • Game of Thrones (minus, well, you know) All of these books had issues that made them less fun to read than to watch. And all this as someone who writes themselves
I don’t hate you at all is the thing! Those adaptations (other than WoT which is more contentious) are extremely highly regarded and I see no problem with you liking them more. Even wot which I have an up and down feelings about! It’s not personal Ya know?
@@hannahbrennan2131 Well I think they're pretty similar and largely suffer from the same problems, mainly pacing. I'm not a fan of jordan's writing style, so on screen the characters come to life better for me.
"I liked the book better": Lord of the Rings books. "I consumed more of": the movies Why? Because, while not a film connoisseur, I experience similar emotions in a shorter time frame. Similar, not the same. Because I have a musical background, the movies have one up on the books in that regard. This was a great video! A+
A lot of people miss the point that it's an "adaptation" and therefore has to "adapt" to another medium. I am not a "book is better" guy. I'm a "book is different" guy. I get what you're saying about books being able to get deeper into the main character's thoughts, but sometimes that can actually be a hindrance, especially when the potential of side characters is better than the main character. I think the best example of this is my prime example of where the adaptation was better than the book, which is the Magicians. Making it an ensemble improved it so much, and even the main character from the books, Quentin, became a better character because of how much everyone around him was written. I think a book like Fourth Wing would really benefit from having side characters (many of whom were more interesting to me) are fleshed out a lot more in an ensemble format. I also feel if they did another Dresden files show they should make it a lot more of an ensemble, because Harry is far less interesting than the people around him
The LOTR books are better in my humble opinion. One of the things I noticed during the ROP backlash was that there was plenty of people that either forgot or didn’t notice how many changes Peter Jackson made to the LoTR adaptation and that Christopher Tolkien thought the films were “mindless action movies”, that’s not to mention the abomination of the hobbit films
I agree, the LOTR books are incredible, and honestly I don't think it's possible to fully and accurately adapt them to a visual medium. And I understand the purist pov, but for Christopher Tolkien to minimize the films that way was unfair (although, as much as I love the films, I suspect JRR Tolkien would have despised them as well). But I think Jackson's biggest success aside from being (more or less) faithful to the books was putting character arcs on screen whereas in the books, I feel like many of the arcs didn't exist or happened prior to the events of the book. It's something a purist might hate, but I feel it was the key to the success of the films. Not sure where this rambling came from, but there you are 🤣
I am usually judging the adaptations on how true they stayed to the source material. The first Dune film stayed rather true to the source material so I appreciate the film. Yes the book has a lot of inner thoughts being written down which cannot be shown in film, however that are the limits of the medium. Same applies to Sandman they changed things but the changes were small and kept true to the overall story being told in the comics so I can appreciate it.
i often wonder why in a film adaptation they change something that wouldn't be hard to film i.e the way jack dies in the film adaptation of the shining compared to the book death of him in the shining
I think the major problem with the screen is that whereas books have analogies and metaphors to enhance mental images with emotions, the director can only rely on the audience's familiarity with a prescribed visual language. I mean how do you translate a sentence like this to the screen: > The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't. There's just no way...
Well.. it kinda depends, if there is or isn't any opportunity within that particular story to visually show that contrast of how bricks do not hang in the sky. But, yeah, you're kinda right-even when movies or tv DO utilize metaphors or similes or certain things as analogous for other things or such(like werewolf movies using werewolfism as symbolic representation of puberty and/or vampirism being used as a metaphor or whatever for sexuality or for various societal divides or such), it depends on the viewer being able to do the internal work to pick up on or understand it, whereas with books the written language can for the most part largely do the work for the reader often enough with words such as "like" or "the way how" and so on. But there are some filmmakers who really do put a ton of thought into the imagery they are or aren't using, in ways that really aren't all that different from what writers do with their word choice selections. It really depends. (And not every reader actually always enjoys or understands written metaphors and/or figurative language and such particularly well either-which I believe is one reason why 'flowery' or 'purple' prose gets such a bad rep sometimes, too.)
I think there's a reason why usually "the book is better" - Movies have many different elements (the set itself, camera, actors, effects, music etc.), so the script (== the actual story) is sometimes ignored. Especially when the money spent on the script is negligible compared to the other elements of the movie, so it's easier to be ignored as "not important". This is true even for adaptations (where the script is based on the original books), since any adaptation changes the story... (e.g. the decision which parts to show and which parts to omit makes it a different story.) Bottom line, usually (but not always) movies and TV don't invest much in the scripts themselves, which makes them inferior to the books.
I think if fantasy adaptations were better this wouldn’t come off as snobby. I think it makes book readers get defensive when the adaptation is not that good. Especially to non book readers. If for example a non book reader didn’t like wheel of time. I think it will be natural for a book reader to be like “the books better”.
I'm definitely a "the book was better" person... until my wife always points out that my favorite movies include Wizard of Oz, LOTR, Somewhere In Time, Hunger Games, The Prestige, V for Vendetta, and on and on. I don't know why she chooses violence, but this is my life. 😛 Love the video ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 👋🤓💡⬆
Books are always better for giving us the POV characters' thoughts. But it doesn't help that there are a lot of bad film/TV adaptations. Some cut corners for budget reasons. Some are made by writers who don't understand/love the source material for the same reason book fans do.
I think what really sells either version for me is the talent of the filmmaker or author. For me, ive always felt the Harry Potter books were witty and funny in the way the story was actually told, something thats completely lost in the movies, so i blame that as the reason i never connected with the movies. On the flip side, i find just about any Stephen King book to be bloated and meandering due to the writing style, but i like a lot of the movies and even consider some adaptations to be the best in the horror genre. I also liked the LOTR movies more, but I genuinely dont know if thats because i didnt read the books until last year and Ive seen the movies a dozen times each and consider them to be some of the greatest pieces of cinema in existence. Also i didnt care for the Witcher books and slightly enjoyed the show more, but honestly it wasnt that good either and i couldnt bring myself to keep watching after season 1. The Witcher 3 video game though was adapted perfectly for the medium, and its rightfully considered one of the best adventure games out there due to the rich world being explored, the dozens of well realized characters, and a team behind it that really cared about highlighting what was good about the books (even if the author was a bit of a douche when it came to the adaptation and even sued them when they started making money because he assumed the games would be a complete failure). Yeah, im just really not a fan of that guy. Anyway great vid, lots to think about!!
I just started really reading over the last few years. I've found two things. Reading a book after I've watched the movie/tv show lessens the book for me. I find myself looking forward to highlights from the adaptation, and I find myself glossing over details in the book. It really has lessened the story for me. The opposite is also true. Watching something after I've read the book has really been a let down. They never meet my expectations. All the way down to what characters look like or sound like in my head. I have no expectations this will ever be perfect, how could it be. It's just doesn't hit the same. The only exception I've found, is from Ready Player One. The book and movie are so completely different from each other, distinguishing them from each other is simple.
The book vs TV thing also kind of starts young, too. In school you get forced to engage in reading (I'm in my 40s, and I'm not going to read Harry Potter because the year that came out, I was obliged to endure Tom Brown's Schooldays, and I *will not* read about some little puke who goes to boarding school ever again), whereas the TV getting wheeled in generally indicated an incoming skive.
I usually tend to like the book better. I can think of a few examples where I preferred the movie. I remember liking the movie Holes better than the book.Though it's been awhile since I read the book or watched the movie. I think it's hard making a good movie adaptation of book. I find that the adaptation either changes too much of the source material or tries to be exactly the book, neither extreme in my opinion makes a good adaptation.
While I often like the book better, there are exceptions. Most often for comedies, like The Princess Bride or Big Trouble, where the film can use comedic timing and performances to enhance the delivery of jokes that just don't have the same impact when read.
yay for self reflection! I'm def a classic "book is better" guy, so definitely appreciate hearing your thoughts. With Divergent, I honestly can't remember what I liked better. The book was...fine. And the movie was...fine. I never did finish that series.
Loved your section on medium/moralizing. Almost surprised to not see Rory as one of the clips. So much quirk! Hah.
I read a ton, probably more than most of my friends and I have lots of conversations about my friends and I very much try to not be condescending or superior because of that. I get comments from my friends all the time (very nice friends!) similar to "Oh I really respect how much you read", "it's so much better that you read a lot", etc. It's assumed that I'm higher-brow, more intellectual, etc because I read. And to defuse that (and try to stay humble!), I often say that my reading is akin to other people's TV-watching. How do I relax at night or on the weekend? I read!! I enjoy reading more, it makes me happier and it's just plain relaxing. TV-watching isn't my jam. I will watch some TV series but honestly? Only one I've watched all the way through this year is Wheel of Time (surprised? Haha). So I tell my friends that it doesn't make me better that I read instead of watching TV, because for me, it's what helps me relax.
That all being said, is it important to be intentional in what media we consume? Absolutely and that's probably the subject for a different video! But briefly - for me at least, I know I want to be mindful about what I'm watching/reading, knowing it will affect my mind/mood/psyche. I want to read a variety of books, not just one type of fantasy or sci-fi. I want to educate myself, learn things, and grow my soul, and that means making choices in what I read and watch. Having a mix of books/shows/movies in the diet is important, just like in eating. Variety and moderation are very good things. So yes, I have my trashy fantasy and fluff books....and then I have my biographies, histories and science books! I have my quirky magic realism books and poetry....and then I have my spiritual and inspirational books.
gah I was not brief. sorry for spiraling off topic!!
Yes both were "fine". Didn't love the movie, but did think it improved some things (I never even saw the second movie lmao). And I ALMOST put Rory but I've never actually watched Gilmore girls so I felt I couldn't actually make commentary 🤣
I actually don't think you are off topic- it's def related! I sort of covered some of it in my "are we in a post-literate society" vid, but there are absolutely considerations. I mean, I'm extremely limiting on screens for my children. It's pretty statistically proven that reading improves vocabulary and learning outcome skills later in life. So obviously some of the moralizing comes from a place that is truthful. However, I think in the *specific* cases of comparing adaptations, it's ok to remove the moralization, since in that way we are viewing the works as entertainment. And I totally agree- reading IS my entertainment activity!
Well, I certainly can't wait for your deeper dive on the societal moralization of consuming stories via the screen vs. reading (it's inevitable now, right?). You ALWAYS get me thinking, and I mean that as the highest of compliments.
Moralizing aside, I field a lot of commentary about my books that I'm sure you hear around your house--friends, neighbors, extended family, usually jokingly, saying something like: "Can't wait for the adaptation/movie/series." So many seem to feel that getting adapted is the ultimate prize for a book, which I find interesting. Might be as simple as the fact that they know they're never going to read it, but they're still interested because they know me...? Thanks for always making the extra effort.
Omg YES I literally JUST talked about this with my husband! I find it fascinating that many people want an adaptation as a crown. Maybe I should have mentioned in this video since it’s relevant to my perspective here - my favorite books could never get an adaptation and that would not upset me in any way 🤣 I just don’t need it! However, I usually want it for the author themselves since most authors I think view that as a capstone (and obviously helps them gain popularity)
I almost wonder if that happens because film is the new, shiny tech on the block in comparison to writing. It's also way more accessible to general audiences because of its visual nature, so I think more people just like film better (evidenced by how film is way more popular than reading).
I think that it can also be related to the fact that people know that producing an adaptation is expensive and we know it. So, if a novel gets picked up for adapting, people are led to believe that it is regarded as a "good" work because the producers are willing to take the risk in order to make the adaptation. So, the fact that something gets adapted is kind of seen as validating of its worth. I do not think that it is necessarily true though because, as you said, many books are simply not suited for the visual medium but I believe that this might be how some people could see it.
I like your comments about the the different tools used in the different mediums. I think one of the advantages of books over movies is the ability for a reader to insert themselves into the story. It's easier to see yourself as the main character when your own mind is providing the imagery.
YES! And easier to mold the story and interpret it to fit your feelings or worldview.
I think that really depends on the individual person who is reading or watching, honestly. Since different things will always come more or less easily to different individuals. And some people prefer to enjoy simply imagining themselves alongside the character(s), rather than in the place of any of them. (Not to mention the fact that not every person actually even wants[ or enjoys] to personally insert themselves into the stories that they consume, at all.) 😅😅
But, apart from those exceptions, you're not wrong!.😊 💜
Most movies just do not have the space to develop characters and worlds that novels do. Chances are high that those are two things you love about stories in general, which would explain why you always love the book more. John Truby had a cool class on how to translate books into movies and vice versa and talks alot about the strengths of each medium. This would also explain why you liked the Star Wars novel more than the movie.
I definitely agree. I like reading, on average, more than I like watching movies and TV. So, generally, I prefer the book over the adaptation. I think it's partially because I'm selfish and I like my vision of things more than seeing a bunch of other people's vision. I have a pretty vivid imagination and when I'm reading there is a movie playing in my mind, but this "movie" is partially my own creation since I'm filling in details that aren't actually in the book. No adaptation is going to 100% match my own vision is never going to be as detailed and immersive as my own imagination.
lol YES! I have a specific vision. Reading is active - it requires you to make decisions about how you view and interpret things, whereas cinema and tv *tend* to present a specific interpretation.
Especially in fantasy, where adaptations have to cut certain characters, scenes, etc, I normally appreciate all of those extra features that having the written word allows. This was really key with GoT to me, I loved the show but loved the books that much more when I got to see many actions/characters in far more detail
Yeah, I think this particularly applies to fantasy adaptations; fantasy tends to have large casts of characters that are difficult to adapt to screen.
I largely agree. The added detail is really important to me and enriches my experience with the stories. I will say the biggest exception to me is The Princess Bride. I really enjoyed the book, but thought some of the changes made the movie flow better and overall more enjoyable. Admittedly though many of the best parts were pulled directly from the book and there were a few book details I wish had remained like the written version of Inigo and Westley's sword fight, it was masterfully written.
Even though you prefer books what adaptations have you found to be your favorites?
Princess bride is such an interesting experience because the author wrote the screen play. So it’s almost in a category of it’s own. I’d say I like them the same amount, although I have a much bigger emotional connection to the movie since I watched it for decades before reading the book.
My favorite adaptations are def princess bride, LOTR, hunger games, holes, and good omens!
Didn't the same person write both the book and the screenplay/script//whatever? 🤔 (Please, correct me, if I'm mistaken! 🫣🙏😊😁😁 Lol)
@@Bookborn Haha 😂 I should have scrolled down further before commenting previously. ^-^
This isn't a popular opinion, but I preferred the LotR movies (extended editions) over the book. I've just never been a fan of Tolkien's writing style. Too many exclamations! I also think the Bourne movies were better than the books - I watched the movie first and then tried to read the first book but couldn't get through it. But I agree with you in that I enjoyed the Star Wars prequel novels quite a bit - the extra scenes really helped flesh out the story and characters more.
Seconded on the LotR opinion. I read the books first but High Fantasy always sounds way to grandiloquent for me.
Same here
I couldn't agree more. The LOTR books have major pacing issues. I like Tom Bombadil in and of himself, but he would have worked better in his own separate story instead of having him as a pointless detour. Also, do we really need 100+ pages just describing a tree?
I'm suddenly curious, does anyone know if the Star War prequel novelizations included extra scenes that were thought up by the novelist adapting the story or if they were adapted from scenes that George Lucas thought up for the movies but had to cut for runtime or pacing or other reasons, or what?
@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341 Yeah. The novelizations have extra scenes that really improve the story.
I am a thematic reader who loves monologues in books and while there are cases of it working amazingly, monologues or just reflection over certain ideas are harder to execute in films or to even be accepted in the first place to be included. Because of this an important aspect of storytelling could be absent for me, which could cause me to be less emotionally attatched to the film. Don't know if I worded that correctly
yes absolutely! This is exactly it. I think internal struggle as typed out on a page is something I love. While I think some actors can do a fantastic job at displaying that on screen, it's never quite the same.
I'm definitely a "the book was better" girl. I can admit when an adaptation is almost as good as the book tho: The Martian, The Expanse, Harry Potter. And I like the Hunger Games movies more than I like the books. My boyfriend is not a reader, and I feel like it gives us something to discuss when i compare adaptations to the books. I've almost convinced him to read The Expanse because he loved the show and wants to know what happens in the last 3 books!
Oooh I def like Harry Potter the books more than the movies, but I've heard the Martian movie is incredible (I need to watch it still! I loved the book and heard it's fantastic).
@@Bookborn the Martian movie is almost the exact same as the book. It is cool to see Matt Damon act out all the scenes from the book. It's worth your time to watch.
Thanks for articulating so well the difference between snobbery and personal preferences. I think it helps a lot to actually have a dialogue about what we like and dislike about books and their adaptations. I think it is generally quite ignorant to marginalize opinions because someone enjoyed another medium better though. So I'd also invite the people who dismiss such people outright to ask a question instead.
Unless of course you're not doing an actual adaptation but a story inspired by the source material that you then completely turn inside out and upside down (looking at you Witcher and Snow White creators). In which case there is no dialogue to be had. But you already did a great video on that ;)
Love what you have to say here. I just had a moment recently which brought similar thoughts to mind. I finished reading Foe by Iain Reid and then watched the trailer for the upcoming adaptation... and in the trailer I was blown away by how emotionally intense and triller-y they made it which was such a shift from the slow-burn, atmospheric experience of the book, but then, as you say, I feel like it makes sense for a film adaptation to capitalize on the emotion? Idk. I guess bottom-line, like you say, it is nice to let artistic mediums do what they do best. It doesn't need to be apples-to-apples :)
Yes, SUPER good point about how movies need to capitalize on the emotional (and action-packed) parts of a book to better adapt to screen. I think for some books this certainly works better than others (One I think of is The Giver - I really struggled with that movie since the book is so introspective!)
100% agree with you on this. I've made this argument to friends numerous times who've always pooh poohed it on the basis that books are just "objectively" better. They will often claim that movies/TV will never have the complexity or depth of books without understanding that they are simply more used to and aware of the storytelling techniques in books because that is how we are taught.
The reality is that although as a society we consume a lot of visual media we are not as film literate as we think as we simply aren't taught the techniques as much in school, which remains biased towards written forms of storytelling.
Perfect analysis! lets de-stigmatize entertainment formats . I especially loved how you look at both sides and how there are things like the emotion in music or an actor's portrayal of a character that can't be translated into a book. I absolutely love reading. It's my favorite medium. Being in my own head imagining what's happening and what characters are thinking. Still, my imagination can only bring me so far. For example, I can't imagine space battles as clearly and vividly as they can appear on screen. Sometimes when I read a description, I'm like, "what in the world does that look like?" I can't see it in my mind's eye. Really, there's just so much that you can gain from both film and book. It really just depends on what you want and what makes you appreciate one or the other.
yes, yes yes! I'm really bad at spacial awareness when reading (like I just can't imagine big places very well LOL) so I love seeing castles or cities/towns played out on screen because it helps me get scale.
I always appreciate the takes from your channel.
As someone who has entered multiple fandoms (ASOIAF!) as a result of the HBO adaptation of the series. Not always, but sometimes, I have felt like a second-class participant in the fandom because of that.
I like both, and look forward to future adaptations of other series I am neck deep in (hi Cosmere), and hope that fandoms can become more welcoming to future new fans that inevitably learn about these books from adaptations.
Unrelated to the point of the video, but the LOTR soundtrack was something I listened to while studying. I get weird 2nd hand stress now when I watch the movies because it reminds me of Finals week in college 😂
lol NOOOO that's like how I used to have a favorite song set as an alarm and now I HATE IT.
So, with some exceptions, I'm generally in the "book is better" camp for most cases. I think your point about getting into characters' heads is right on point. I also think reading is more of an active process than reading, so you tend to notice more of the details, since the author has to actually write them, whereas with a show or movie they may be hidden in the background where you don't notice them until you watch a TH-cam video pointing out the Easter Eggs. Also, reading being more active, I at least find for me, one reason I prefer the book to the tv show/movie often comes down to the book being a more immersive experience, where I can't pull out my phone and send a message to a friend or look at sports scores in the middle (this is also why I can't do audiobooks, since I'm too easily distracted and miss too much). Also, with a book, it's the creator of the story's intent. When an author writes a book, sure, they may have to make some concessions to a publisher to make it marketable. However, they aren't limited by the same time limits, technological restraints, and budgets in the way a show or film project is, so any cuts the author makes are more deliberate in their efforts to further the story they want to tell, whereas a director or showrunner might be having to make practical cuts. There were quite a few of these in WoT Season 2 I can turn to since it's so fresh in my head, but I think an obvious one would be replacing the sky battle with a battle on top of the tower and big CGI dragon, since the battle in sky would likely have been a bit goofy and the set-up really didn't put them in a position for them to have Rand, Perrin, and Mat riding in to battle together with the Dragon Flag. Or, with the Hunger Game movies, which I thought were fine adaptations, but you couldn't show everything Katniss faced in the Arena, so they had to pick the more notable ones and streamline. Or, Lord of the Rings having to cut some characters who actually played important parts in Frodo getting out of the Shire. Or, any number of adaptations having to combine a few characters who played important roles, but were only there briefly, and would've required casting more actors and expecting viewers to keep track of even more people (there were a number of these in Harry Potter, for example).
I totally agree that we have culturally moralized reading versus watching TV/movies, when they're both art forms with room for good and bad art abound. I also think that for me, a good adaptation has to add something to the conversation. Like, there has to be a reason for it to exist. I wouldn't like an extremely one-to-one or literal adaptation of most of my favorite books, plays, etc. I never even saw the LOTR movies until 2020, when I was 23, despite reading the books over and over from childhood, and I still connect to them in this really deep, powerful way because of how character driven they are, because of the music, the lush visuals, and the incredible acting. There are some changes I disagree with (Jackson's relationship to war in the films isn't really accurate to Tolkien's themes, and Sam would never ever ever ever leave Frodo, for example), they're the strongest adaptations basically in history because they have their own identity that honors Tolkien's works. They're more accessible--I love Tolkien, but understand that structurally and stylistically some people just do not connect with his books, and I get it. They're streamlined, they give extra narrative closure to certain characters, and they make choices that asserts a separate and powerful identity. I don't think they're better than the books, but they inhabit a separate enough space that I don't even know if that conversation needs to be had. That's kind of my ideal adaptation, you know?
Wow, I love SO MUCH what you have to say here, especially "There has to be a reason for it to exist". The best adaptations walk the fine line of honoring the books while saying something new. Although, I suppose a reason to exist could just be that it brings the novel to more audiences - tv/movies are by far more viewed than books read.
I think the only times I have found that I don’t love a book more are 1) Shakespeare (I like reading the plays as much but not more than performed) 2) If I HATE a book and they change the storyline for the adaptation so it doesn’t resemble what I read 😂
But my husband won’t read a novel. I’m thankful that adaptations exist so we can talk about the stories together.
Oooh ok so Shakespeare is interesting. Do we believe *reading* the plays is the original form or the theater being performed? I'd say normally we'd never say the script of Hamiliton is the original, but rather seeing it preformed. I think we read Shakespeare a lot because he was so influential and famous and most people won't get to see productions.
@@Bookborn I’m pretty even on my enjoyment of reading/watching Shakespeare. I love when I see a performance but they’re well written pieces of literature. I believe his intention was only for stage with the plays, but they nonetheless are wonderful pieces to read. Hamilton is a musical, so I’m not sure that was a good comparison.
@@BookbornShakespeare is properly consumed in its intended form (performance). This isn't even in the same vein as your videos topic, as when you read Shakespeare you are reading _the play_ not the book adaption of the play. The comparison is more similar to watching attack of the clones and reading the script of the movie, not the book adaption.
There is a significant amount of nuance lost from reading the play vs watching a performance for every dramatic piece, but it's doubled (hyperbole used) with Shakespeare because of the pronunciation changes to English. There is a lot more rhyme and a lot more dirty jokes that a reader will not pick up on, but an actor can demonstrate via physicality, that a reader cannot get
That's actually what I"m trying to argue lol! The original commentor said that they didn't love the book as much is when it's Shakespear - but my point there was that technically reading it is the *adaptation* and not the original form, so I don't think it's really comparable here. They weren't made to be read, but rather performed.@@masmullin
I am definitely a book first person. Something I will add that makes me side with book readers more than film or tv is understanding the commitment needed to finish some of these books. You can half ass watching a TV show or movie, but finishing a book requires your undivided attention in a way that watching on TV does not. You cannot miss an important scene in a book, but you cam finish watching a tv show and miss a really important scene but still leave there go on social media and feel like you got the full experience.
This is simply untrue, especially for those readers who will outright skim or skip completely entire scenes they don't personally like or feel as engaged by. But even when readers don't skim or skip anything, they can still miss some things from time to time, because the same details just don't always jump-out-at and/or stick-in-the-forefront-of the mind for every person. It is absolutely possible to half-ass reading a book, too. How deeply either medium does or doesn't engage someone's attention can entirely depend on the individual person watching/reading & or on the individual moment they are doing so.
I do think that's also an element to why book fans get so heated about adaptations 🥲 They've put a lot of time and energy into it!
I think this is great insight. As an avid reader, I always felt like the odd one out when I'd say that I liked the film/TV adaptations better. But you're right - it's just my preferred storytelling style in general. The acting, the visual effects, the stunts, the music, etc. all add something to the underlying story.
This is fascinating to me as someone who is an equal fan of both film and reading. Sometimes, what I prefer is a toss-up, but with my favorite adaptations I tend to appreciate the techniques used. However, I'm becoming more of a "the book is better" person because with books you're more-or-less getting the author's original intent (I know publisher's might have an influence on less prolific authors' work), whereas with film/TV adaptations, there's always going to be a higher level of "do what the people like" that can potentially negatively impact the work. Traditionally I've said I prefer the LOTR films to the book, but now I'm not so sure; I think it's a case where, as a film lover, the experience of watching the films and hearing the music is so euphoric that I might prefer it to reading the book. There's also something like Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban where I'd say the book is better, but I watch the film much more often than I re-read the book because of how much I love the atmosphere it captures along with the cinematic choices made.
You hit the nail on the head with this!
The phrase has been overused, especially against good adaptations. Now when people bring it up, in earnest over what they think are legitimately bad adaptations, people see elitism and the obnoxious Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, interjecting their gatekeeping where it isn't welcome.
I much prefer Return of the King in book form, as I do not think the film does the story justice, but I hold my tongue. I find some of the changes almost criminal, but despite that, I still find the film (mostly) wonderful and it keeps capturing the spirit of Tolkien's world, even if they bungle a few things. I love the book and films of Fellowship and The Two Towers almost equally. They both have their strengths, though if pushed into it, I'd have to hand it to the books for being "better."
I know all of this is subjective, but a lot of the changes in adaptations in the last decade or so seem perplexing to me. The lower viewership and small (or shrinking) box office for many of these productions are a good measure that the changes are not welcome (though there are probably many other factors as well). Character backstories being completely re-written, unnecessary updates to the era it's set in, very contemporary (and not timeless) dialogue that will make it a product of it's time, and so on.
Books are an active medium. As a reader you supply the elements that make it work in your imagination - casting, direction, etc all with unlimited budget and resources. It's tailor made for you, because you an active participant in the story. An adaptation to a movie/series will always be one person or group of individuals interpretation. It can never compete with the 'movie in your head'. No adaptation could ever compete with that. I think this becomes more apparent the more you are invested in a good book. The trick then is to be able to disconnect the adaption from the book and just see it on it's own terms rather than think about which is better. Of course that is easier said than done sometimes, especially if you have been waiting years to see your favourite book come to life.
I don't think anything you're saying is incorrect, really-but I would quibble that not everyone always has to be so attached to their own personal visions of a story, even when they really really love it, that they are completely incapable of ever appreciating someone else's just as much or sometimes even more. 😊💖
@@jaginaiaelectrizs6341 I think you are right. When you are able to do that you actually get more enjoyment from something you care about.
@@TheMikeMulligan Exactly! 🙂💖
I'm definitely a book is always better person. Even when I rarely read, I would find the books better, although it would help with the characters in my mind as I'm not a very visual reader.
There are many reasons I think, but mainly it's the bigger scope, it's the extra stuff which either wasn't in the show/film that's clearly described (how people were feeling etc.
I would say on adaptations, the ones that seem to be well received are the ones with a close relationship to the author, I'm thinking early Game of Thrones/ House of the Dragon, One Piece, Sandman etc
yes, I actually once plotted author involvement in a production and then it's ratings, and for the most part, the more an author is involved, the higher regarded it is. Adapters...take notes 🤣
@@Bookborn that's cool. was it in a video or just for your own interest?
Awesome! A conversation that I could actually add to. 😅 As both an avid reader, and an actor, I feel like I have a bit of a unique perspective. I can absolutely watch movies/tv and appreciate what they’re doing. And occasionally, I’ll like an adaptation better (but usually only if I don’t like the book), but most of the time, I still believe that the book is better. I’ll have to think more on this and formulate more thoughts. Great discussion.
-T
I think you made a really interesting point in the moralizing of reading. And I think that really goes to the heart of the matter. A lot of people want to just enjoy a story, and film is a much more enjoyable experience. It doesn't require the work that books do. That being said books allow for a level of depth that the movies so often miss. Revenge of the sith is my favorite star wars movie. But the book is so so good. It goes in to so much more detail that movies miss. There is a scene during Anakin and obi wans fight that is partially edited out, but the book explains what is happening and gives great insight into why obi wan came out on top.
But even though the book is generally better. I do live and greatly appreciate a good adaptation
Definitely an interesting topic. One book that I enjoyed much less than the movie was "2010: Odyssey Two". I felt the movie did a much better job of leaving it open what the Monolith was and how much of this was thin distinction between Divine Being and Really Powerful Aliens.
Going with your Star Wars theme, the book of "Revenge of the Sith" was so phenomenal to me (which I read before seeing the movie) that the movie was a bit of a letdown. Even though I did think the movie was well done, the novelization was probably one of the best I have ever read. One of the most haunting lines in the book for me was; "This is how it feels to be Anakin Skywalker. Forever." The context of how that was presented was just fantastic.
Another interesting one for me was "12 Monkeys." I actually think the film did a better job of conveying the vagueness of whether events were really happening or were part of a psychosis. Which was odd because I would have thought the book would have been a bit better at that.
Finally, in terms of horror, I think the recent Halloween novelizations were much better than the films in a lot of ways.
But, all this said, I -- apparently like yourself -- tend to fall into the camp of "the books are better."
I usually prefer the book, but I still like to see adaptations because they give new options for how I can visualize things from the books. Fan art is also great for this, and it is also why I would like to see my favorite novel adapted multiple times, not just once.
I think getting in the heads of characters can be a double edge sword, sometimes it makes the narrative better, like in the Shining, but sometimes it can be grating like, with a lot of Wheel of Time characters.
I think one of the most frustrating things about the WoT adaptation for me is that there WAS so much they could've tweaked to improve the characters/story from the book because of the unnecessary descriptions/being in people's heads, but they somehow decided not to focus on fixing any of that lol
Books have a far different way to tell stories. Movies/TV can't get "into the character's head" as well (and I really like that line). They require the use of other cues (music, looks, etc) which don't always convey the thoughts and emotions the same way (sometimes no way to adequately do it). I also think the concept of "Head Canon" also plays a role. When I read the book(s), I get into the world and my imagination creates what I see in my head. When the adaptation hits the screen, it may be completely be different, which will clash with what I liked in my own head. I will also say that there are times that adaptations have done FAR better jobs then my head canon has... and those will change the way I see it. So, a give and take.
Yes, yes YES. We can interpret things how we want, but when it gets to screen, it's often a single interpretation. If that's different than what you thought, it can be hard to reconcile. Although I agree on the other hand: there have been things about adaptations that made me like something more than I did in the book (one I can think of off the top of my head is the character of Nina from Six of Crows)
I think this is one of the reasons Enders Game comes up short as a movie. Aside from having to accelerate the storyline, we don’t know much of what Ender is thinking. I don’t dislike the movie by any means but the book is better IMO.
For me, I know people who genuinely struggle to absorb written information, or who simply aren't fast readers[ and have busy-busy lives] and thus just don't have the spare time available that would be necessary for them to dedicate to reading anything-so that's why they gravitate more toward a movie or tv series. And that's why I always wish that my favorite books would get as faithful adaptations as possible. Because I want them to be able to enjoy the same stories as me, on their own terms, not only through the lens of me telling them about it.
But, on the other hand, I personally really appreciate both film(when I was younger I dreamed of attending film school) and writing(which ended up being basically my life's passion though not profession) so on my independent own it just entirely depends-and I actually can enjoy seeing other people's visions and/or reimaginations of the story just as well as I enjoy seeing a faithful one, simply in completely different ways.😊
I always think and try to experience them as different things, or one based on another as opposed to a complete recreation of the book.
Same for comparing games to films or even films to shows.
Love this video. I dig the introspection and the insights it reveals. I’d love to see a follow up video on this that talks about how to draw comparisons between two separate mediums. They really are apples and oranges, so outside of one’s preference in medium, I’d like to hear more about how you judge a book by its own criteria against a movie with its own separate criteria.
I love books and i love well done adaptations and rarely view them in competition with each other. Best example being LOTR, where i was utterly addicted as a child to the books but have also watched the films a million times and love those too.
I love this! I am someone who does love books and film about equally and there are a decent number of adaptations that I do like better than the books (Mockingjay is a good example!) or one’s that I love equally for different reasons (LotR) so for me when I say “the book was better” I usually do mean “that was not a great adaptation”
Being morally superior is a fine aspiration. It is a guide for those of us who have not experienced the world and a tool to fight against ignorance when you become better as a whole.
love the reference to the Attack of the Clones novelization, all those books were written with only the script and not the final movie and yet each one of them was so much better to me as a kid than the movies.
I had actually the same feelings about "attack of the clones"! Being from Germany, for some reason the book came out first here, as far as I remember, so I also read it first. It definitely added some depth to certain aspects of the film, which was a nice thing to have (also, I was like sixteen back then and super into Star Wars, so I just grabbed any content you could get back then :-)
As both an avid reader and someone that has worked in film/tv I find the book to be better around 50% of the time, the book and adaptation to be about equal around 30% of the time, and the adaptation to be better about 20% of the time.
I think a reason why the book is often regarded more highly is that the story was designed for that specific medium whereas the adaptation was not.
Some stories will suit the other mediums more than others, and the ones that don’t will require more changes, which may upset fans of the original.
I think it’s a matter of execution. With an adaptation you are given tools to work with, but are also constrained with what you can do with them.
It takes a lot of talent to identify what worked about the original, what will work on screen, and reconcile those two.
I like the Shawshank Redemption, Jaws, Psycho movies over books, although I like all the books. Actually Psycho the book was really really good.
i find reading to be the norm, even though i love films secindary, but when music is in a soundtrack for a film series, thats really legit to me
Interesting take! I am a book is better kind of person as well, and l guess l do like reading more - l love to savour the words on the page and also all the nuances and details that you can't possibly put in a movie (tho maybe in a series...), and also with the book l get to decide what characters look like and interpret how they behave - it's *my* movie, my personal take on what's going on.
I do also like watching movies, but l think with adaptations it's always so tricky because they need to get so many things 'right', while translating the story to a whole different medium. Imo, the most essential thing is they get the characters and the spirit/feel of the book. It doesn't matter so much if they change things (which they have to do to adapt it), but it needs to feel true to the character and the book - like "okay, that didn't happen in the book, but l like it/it is something that could have happened" vs "she would *never* do something like that"... Harry Potter didn't have green eyes in the movies and that didn't really matter, but look what they did to Faramir...! (I liked the movies overall, but was so mad at that...)
The new Dune had additional scenes, and things left out, and other changes, but it was fine, the atmosphere was pitch perfect - it FELT right... a great adaptation can bring a story to life in a way that you never imagined, and becomes another way to experience a favourite story.
I've always found reading books to be more engaging than watching movies. Watching movies is a very passive experience for me. The visuals tell me exactly what things look like, the actors tell me what the characters are like, the music tells me what I should be feeling at any given moment, etc. With a book, I find it's making my brain work more. It's not passive. The writer can't literally describe and detail everything, so my brain fills in the gaps, makes it's own interpretations. The only time I think I definitively preferred the movie over the book was with Peter Benchley's Jaws. I am a Benchley fan, but Spielberg created magic on the screen that just wasn't there in the novel (and the movie had a much better ending).
Film is probably my favorite art medium so it's very mixed for me. I might like the Dune movie better than the book, for example. I think HP3 and LOTR are in the same category for me. I just got a lot more from the movie than the respective books. So definitely agree!
I've noticed that judgy moralizing in myself. 🙃 I enjoyed reading a recent Reddit thread asking: Which adaptations are better than the books? My favorite answer to that question? Big Fish.
For me, it comes down to how long a story requires to be fully told. The least amount of time you're probably going to spend with a book is around 4-5 hours, but most are magnitudes more than that. The longest movies I can think of are about 3 hours.
Two recent examples that got me thinking about this are A Man Called Ove vs A Man Called Otto and Where the Crawdads Sing.
Ove's neighbor/best friend/rival gets about 5 minutes of screen time in the movie, whereas he is completely fleshed out in the book. You get so invested in their complicated relationship that the climax of the book really earns its emotional impact. Watching the movie, my wife was like "Oh, why does he care so much about that guy? I thought he hated him".
In Crawdads, the story is a lot more straightforward. I thought the book was decent, but I thought the movie was better paced. A picture is worth a thousand words in this instance, showing her nature drawings was much more effective than describing them. Showing her isolation was the same.
I'm probably about 80/20 "The book was better". I don't think most adaptations get enough time to translate what's on the pages, but if it went the opposite direction, I don't think something like Toy Story 3:The Novelization would be worth the pages it would take, but the movie is enjoyable for what it is.
I think The Princess Bride is an interesting case. They are both excellent, but they both work well in their individual mediums. Each tells it's own frame story about a book and the story within the book. In the book, the frame story works in a way that wouldn't work as a movie. It has humor that wouldn't work as well in a movie. The movie is it's own version that is excellent as a movie, but wouldn't work as well as a book. I think it really helps that the author wrote both the book and the screenplay, and played to the strengths of both.
Great reflection and analysis. Thank you.
‘The book is better’ is a judgement that is easy to dismiss as dismissive. And superior. And snobbish. And so on.
The book does have the innate advantage of being a superior storytelling medium which caters to every sense we devote to consuming a tale. It invites our imagination, challenges our comprehension, engages our thoughtfulness and invariably activates resonance.
An adaptation on screen of a book comes with prerequisites. And nowadays, these prerequisites seem to be getting invoked more and more vehemently and any pushback, no matter how objective it may be, is zealously caterwauled into categories where the self appointed defenders of adaptations can then dismiss it with their own clearly displayed logical failings, as a form of projection.
It’s one thing to note ‘a matter of taste’ because that is an inarguable absolute.
A consumer likes what they like. Preference does not beget clarity of judgement. Or make for a convincing argument, much less a rigorous conclusion in favour of adaptations.
SFF works also often have added hurdles in adaptation because there is so much more to ‘get right’ beyond the conceptual… and much of it depends on the Director’s Vision, as it relates to their understanding of the source material and how they are prepared to disseminate it.
An adaptation does not exist that is ‘better’ than the source material. They exist on two levels.
- Authentic Evocation, be it through slavish faithfulness or emotional resonance in the face of major changes.
- Consumer Capture, where an adaptation in a visual medium can cut through in ways the demands of reading will not, because reading asks a consumer to do more, by definition, in their consumption.
Do you like the adaptation better because it was easier to consume? Because it was well cast enough to complement your imagination, or even supplant it? Because it was a good enough work of art to be judged on its own terms, as opposed to how closely it hewed to its source?
None of these things make the adaptation of the written word in a visual medium, superior. No matter how they excel on their own terms, the result will remain obliquely asymptotic to the line it plots on the axes of its creative ambitions.
Just because a visual adaptation resonates with readers, does not guarantee it succeeds overall. Similarly, while a powerhouse performance may make an otherwise unfaithful adaptation watchable, it is certainly no sign of superiority or improvement.
I will conclude with 2 extremes in terms of reputation to emphasise the distinction.
To Kill a Mockingbird is an Adaptation that succeeds on every level.
A respectfully scripted transference to film. Powerful central performances, highlighted by Gregory Peck.
Is it better than the book?
Not even close.
At the other end of the spectrum, let me use an example similar to one Bookborn invoked. A novelisation of a film.
We’re muddying the waters here because the Source Material is the film script. The novel has been extrapolated from that, not the other way around.
The film is Hard Target. A forgettable Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle from the early 1990’s which was itself a ‘take’ on The Most Dangerous Game - a short story rooted in the psychology of man hunting man as he would an animal.
Even at this level of base nihilism and exploitative depravity, the novelisation works better than the film.
Not because of any superior skill being displayed by the author, as opposed to the filmmakers. It is merely the nature of the medium lending itself to a superior product, regardless of the level of the narrative.
A book, comprehensively consumed, will never not be superior to any adaptation it inspires.
Are books truly a "superior storytelling medium"? You've stated this as though it is absolute, but I'm not really convinced this is true. I think that is something entirely dependent on the person and how art moves and captures them.
I have never read a book that has created the same emotional resonance as the combination of music and dance, and I'm not sure I ever will. Plenty of people I'm sure feel the same way about paintings, film, theatre or manga. Whatever, really.
Who are you or any of us to say what the "superior artform" is? Nobody. And to think like that just shows a level of arrogance beyond anything I can comprehend, really. I don't really mean to get too personal, but the way you've essentially denigrated other media and the people it emotionally touches just because it has less value to YOU? I mean, come on.
@jakerockznoodles Don't apologise for getting too personal. Your selective comprehension helps me reinforce my point.
Enjoyment is no definitive evaluation of quality, only of the consumer's capacity to render judgement.
As I made extremely clear, people's tastes are absolutes and those preferences are what they are.
What they are not, is a judgement on the level of art being produced.
By all means, like what you like. But don't deceive yourself, even if the music told you to do so.
If art was meant to only be consumed by the superior means, then The Arts would not have evolved to incorporate inferior, but no less enjoyable mediums.
The fact of one thing should not serve to invalidate the function of the other.
I enjoy The Arts both critically & emotionally. However that enjoyment does not preclude me from recognising, with respect to the question of multimedia adaptations, the book (when consumed comprehensively) is always better.
I think it’s a matter of catharses. For me, reading isn’t super easy (I’m dyslexic) so I tend to savor books so that by the end I feel like I’ve been on a much more intimate and impactful journey. Films are easy to watch and be entertained by but since they pose no challenge and can be enjoyed in one sitting, I rarely get the same feeling of catharses that I do when I read a book. This is true despite the fact that I have a lot of appreciation for the craft of film (my dad is a filmmaker so I have some of that background knowledge). Additionally, in general, a novel can communicate a more intricate plot, characterization, and themes. As much as I love film, it simply asks less of it’s audience.
For me from a pure entertainment standpoint the movies take the win since there's a lot I don't like about the books. The Dune series has done a far better job at holding my attention when it comes to the writing than LoTR oddly enough.
I guess one of the advantages of writing is all the CG, special effects, cast/crew salaries, etc don’t cost anything lol. The author is only limited by their own imagination.
There’s also a great deal of minutia that can be difficult translate into film. A book doesn’t exactly have time constraints attached.
Also with movies you have to deal with the rating system and at least with American movies they largely aim to get a PG 13 rating and NC 17 is a no go for studios. Also the studios often want movies they can sell international which publishers largely don't worry about.
So grateful for the Matilda reference. Well done.
While two of these aren't fantasy, I always cite GONE WITH THE WIND, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and THE GREEN MILE as three examples where I think the film was better than the book.
Exceptions that spring to mind: authors with great ideas but haphazard writing like Philip K Dick, authors who seem to be subconsciously writing for film like Michael Crichton, sprawling stories that benefit from streamlining and faces to attach to all the names like Song of Ice and Fire (until they ran out of source material). But my favorite is a film adaptation so impeccably rendered in cinematography, music and performances that it actually is better than the book: "To Kill a Mockingbird."
The major problem with PKD is he will just drop storyline in the middle of book. From an adopting his books the problem is along with the first problem he would pit dozens of ideas in one book, also he didn't write much if any action in his books (a lot of Amy Science fiction movies are action movies) and most importantly he has three types of endings confusing, depressing or both.
I prefer both the LOTR films and Tolkien's books. Unfortunately most adaptations of books in either shows or films are not good (looking at you Wheel of Time). Good insights btw👍
I read books and they turn into little snippets of movies and then long imagined verbal introspections from a character's POV. If i'm enjoying a book i'll usually stop in a scene to jsut imagine what is going on from non-pov character's perspectives. How they feel about things. Text can have such a density of information - 'A Picture Paints a thousand words' is the very opposite of my experience. Illustrations contain almost no information to me unless i've previously read what the Illustration is about.
The details, the density and being in a character's head are why I have such a difficult time with manga and comics... I just can't seem to turn the medium into a 'movie' in my head without all the text, the visuals from a comic or manga really don't seem to help with that at all. I can mostly glean that extra information from the voices and facial expressions in video adaptations.
I've noticed that I just don't enjoy visual art or music as much, or not in the same way as most people. Whenever i visit a gallery the little card next the picture is *always* the thing that grabs my attention and has all the interesting information.
Probably nothing really special about any of this... it'll likely just depend on how thrilling you found books when you were a small child compared to
other media. I remember the books i'd read from 3-4 years old but I don't recall any films until several years later and only have a few very vague memories of doctor who and other TV things from when i was that age.
Edit: An addendum. A lot of the book was better stuff might be because a book has to be awful, truly awful for me to not enjoy it well enough to finish and to have a good time Whereas I jsut don't have the patience for anything other than outstanding film and tv. I think that a lot of The book was better might come from that. I can enjoy a meh book a lot but if i try to watch the adaptation I just don't manage to enjoy it at all.
I have a take, not sure if it's hot or cold but it's a take. I believe the term "the book is better" is a fact. And I say this as a guy who studies and absolutely loves film.
What I mean by this is that the book is automatically the best as it is the purest form of the story. It contains the true essence of the themes, nuance and energy of the story that people love. The book is so good that they decided to adapt it into other mediums.
It's okay to like the other stuff more, hell I do most of the time but the book will always be the true version at the roots. This is why I think the phrase "the book is better" should die as it is already obvious.
It's borderline impossible to adapt one medium to another 1:1, especially all the parts that people like and judge it for that. That shouldn't be the case. We can't compare them, what we should do is judge the adaptation for how well it captured the "essence", "tone" and "message" of the base material.
Imma use children's books in my example as that's the only thing I read :/
The Wimpy Kid movies are not only loyal to the story of the books but also capture their spirit well, thus why they were popular (and why I prefer them to the first 3 books)(Good Adaptation).
The Captain Underpants movie is not loyal to the story of the first book but it captures the essence of them so perfectly that it became one of my favourite animated movies (Good Adaptation).
The Middle School movie is a decently made movie that follows the general story of the book but it strays so far from the nuance of the themes and characters of the book that it becomes unrecognisable, and is seen by the public as just another teen coming of age movie (Bad Adaptation)
Does this make sense or am I tripping?
I visualize as I read, so when I see it in film it's usually, "that's not how I pictured it"
Totally agree with what you’re saying. Having said that … the books are just always better 😅
It’s not just a case of which is better, it’s that the stories are different.
Characters get combined, or lines given to other characters, or whole story arcs eliminated or presented in a different manner to adapt the story for TV/Movies.
If the source of the story is a book, it’s ‘better’ because it’s the actual story the author intended.
Doesn’t mean I didn’t love the LOTR movies, or Harry Potter movies or The Magicians TV adaptations.
For me it always comes down to maximizing the story that can be told. And so often lots of dialogue and entire scenes have to be removed for movies. This isn’t to say movies can’t be awesome. Just that if I have to pick I’m always gonna prefer the movies for the maximization of the story that I get to read.
Yes yes yes! Maximum stories
I generally like books more than the tv or movie adaptation because books can provide deeper characterization and more detail than a movie/tv can. I think the major advantages film has over books are the musical score and the story can be consumed quicker, which makes it easier to repeatedly consume content that you love.
Lord of the Rings is one of the few stories where I prefer the movie to the books, and it has the best film score I’ve ever heard. That isn’t a coincidence.
As someone who went to film school and has been in love with the art of film for most of my life, and only started reading in my early 20's a few years back, I think 95% of adaptations are worse. It isn't about preferring one medium over another for that percentage imo, it's about the adaptations loosing what the original story was about thematically and emotionally, while not replacing it with anything on the same level, or using its medium to make up for losing what the medium of books have to offer.
The other 5% I believe probably come down to which medium you prefer for that specific story even when they are pretty faithful adaptations. LOTR, Goodfellas, Godfather, To kill a Mockingbird, The Silence of the Lambs, I'm thinking of ending things. (I somewhat enjoyed the Hunger games first book but the movie was worse purely because of how it overused shacky cam and because it was PG13 ((I believe)) and my mind could imagine anything when reading it, it felt so sanatised.)
There is also maybe a small percentage of adaptations where the movie and book are so different that it's really just about which story you prefer. Children of Men, Jurassic Park, The haunting of Hill house (though that is more a very different story using the title, some character names and a very few scenes from the book).
In the end, if a movie doesn't replace what is lost by changing medium, or worse it just takes out things from the story to make it short enough for film without adapting the pacing, themes and events around the changes, then the book will always be better IMO as someone who loves both books and movies a lot.
Edit: I think a large part of why so many movies are worse, is because generally when it's 1 or 2 authors working on a book they put their passions, life, thoughts, everything into those books. Especially for authors who take a while to release books. Wheras films in Hollywood at least are a business from the start of writing a script to the release of the film. A writer only has a certain time to write the adaptation because casting has already begun, location scouting has begun. The studio is probably already planning on the release month/season. Directors, producers, everyone is being hired.
And they often hire people available, that fall in the price range and work well with how the studio functions.
Once it starts it basically can't stop. And all of these people are working on multiple jobs throughout the year. Especially script writers who are always focusing on different stories and trying to be as quick as possible while still doing the job well enough to get paid. Because if they don't then they can't eat or afford a living.
I prefer audiobooks to books and books over films/movies. I am not much of a movie watcher these days like I was when I was a teenager or in my 20s. I’ve been an avid reader since I was a teenager and switched to audiobooks about 5 years ago. Audiobooks helps me with names of characters and places because my learning disability. I do still watch fantasy adaptations even if they aren’t what I expect or want them to be.
I think the only time I've ever preferred an on screen adaptation was Outlander, and that's mostly because I feel Gabaldon's storytelling is too meandering and she needs a more aggressive editor 😅 I'm typically a "book is better" kind of girl. I prefer the level of detail, insight, and world building we get in books, especially in fantasy. I also feel like screen adaptations don't follow magic system rules as much as I want them to (Wheel of Time is a good example of this). I probably used to be a bit snobby about my preference for book over TV/film but now I think I'm a lot more understanding and accepting of people having different preferences.
This perception can also change from genre to genre. Fantasy and sci-fi just generally have more world building and plot than other genres, so the adaptation already has a big hurdle to overcome. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my favorite movies of all time and I think that the movie is better than the book and here the book is much easier to adapt. The Exorcist is also a great example because the film obviously benefits from being much scarier in a visual medium.
In general, there are so many book adaptations that we don't even realize are adaptations.
The other factor is how different the movie is from the book, because some film adaptations can improve a mediocre book, but I think that can only work if you're not too emotionally invested in the book for example by being in the fandom. I much prefer the film version of Blade Runner, although the book is great too, but I'm not so emotionally invested in the book that the changes bother me. With things I've loved for years, like ASOIAF, I'm much more critical of changes.
The Expanse is also one of the few show adaptations where both are equally good because the book authors worked closely with the show writers so they could improve things that didn't work as well in the books.
Bonus point: I finished season 1 of the WoT adaptation and liked it while I dnfed the first book three times after 100 pages. Do what you want with this information xD
You made it past hundred pages good for you. I didn't even get that far.
That said I think another major issue adopting a book to a movie is also the writing. I have seen a few videos about the Stephen King's tropes which as a constant reader I can tell is based solely on the movies because they never mention how many flashbacks he does (in The Shining you get the whole history of Jack and Wendy's relationship through flashbacks before we get to the hotel) and he can sometimes over write. One of his most beloved books The Stand he gives page after page of backstory for a character to die less than a page later after all that history. On the up side when he isn't over writing he can really make a one scene character feel vary real and make you care about them.
In Lynch's 1984 Dune, if I recall they used a lot of voiceovers to try and capture all the internal monologues, and it didn't work well for me.
Yes.
books stimulate imagination and your mind fills in the picture in your head with the best of what you can imagine. sometimes motion pictures cannot live up to our expectations.
What's most important to me about adaptations is maintaining the themes of the original story. I honestly think stories SHOULD be told in more than one way. There are hundreds of versions of Romeo and Juliet, Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, etc. I think that's great. A core part of the human experience is sharing stories with each other, passing them on, building them into something new.
The problem for me begins when an adaptation starts throwing important themes out the window. Like, a feminist work being adapted into something that doesn't stay consistent with the original feminist messaging at all? Uh, no. Not for me.
I usually prefer the book version of a story for the details, but I'll watch the film (or TV) adaptation more frequently because of limited time and my slow reading pace.
I like both books and movies. What I enjoy more is the medium with more detail. That is the reason why I like the house of dragons better than the fire and blood because it was only a section of the book. I just watch the mini series adaptation of Sharp Object and I love it as much as the book because they are about the same density of details and atmosphere. This only applies to equally competent source material and adaptation.
Usually David Fincher is the only director who makes the movie better than the book! He usually gets the author of the books to write the screenplay and even often add an extra chapter! He doesn't exactly do fantasy, but his films are so atmospheric they feel like fantasy! Although my favorite of his films, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, has a whole book series and tv adaptation if you want to delve deeper!
I am an avid reader. Have been since childhood.
There aren't many times a show/movie holds a candle to what it is adapting, and some books really don't work as visual media (I actually think Terry Pratchett is a good example of that. As much as I'm glad some of his works were adapted, and as well as Good Omens has done... typically I don't think they adapt well)
But there are exceptions.
I remember watching Divergent. Interesting premise. Interesting world building. Bit simple and not quite... right.
Read the first book. And honestly, the movie was better. The movie was a 6-7/10, the book maybe a 5. Readable, but didn't draw me in. I've never even watched the sequels, bc the potential is so clearly wasted.
The problem is that "non-readers" are INCREDIBLY insecure about it, imo.
They don't want to know that they might be missing out. Are we going to pretend that the people upset at "the book is better" have also read the book? Because I think that is a rarity :P
They get defensive, then readers get annoyed and the toxicity starts.
And I think the fandoms tend to get the blame, which is unreasonable.
Imagine joining a club, limiting your participation to one small part of that club, then complaining about all the things you don't engage with.
At least book readers are giving opinions based on comparison :P
Sure people can just let the nonreaders enjoy their little corner in peace. But when the "nonreaders" (and their adaptations) are essentially the representation of the "club" to outsiders, I don't think it's unreasonable to care or complain.
I get the point on moralising, with books somehow given moral weight.
But honestly, I think that's overblown.
I love plenty of shows. I think certain genres even work better in visual media, and some require it (I love me a musical. You cant read a musical. Well I can't read a musical, I'm sure some musical savants could :P)
I don't think shows like Hustle or Leverage would work as well in novel form either. (both shows based on a premise of "robin hood" conmen tricking people. I'd recommend ANYONE watching the pilot episode of Hustle for a masterclass in how visual media can tell EXTREMELY clever stories... though I watched it when it first aired a long ass time ago ^^)
So my preference for reading doesn't come from a place of contempt.
There are things that work INCREDIBLY well in visual media.
And there are things that are very difficult to pull off.
Part of that is that reading is a collaboration, while watching a movie is a passive experience.
When you read, your imagination is filling in areas that the author left blank. A good writer can do this with intention, providing context and clues for a reader to build upon. They can rely on shared memes, cultural tropes and common assumptions. And they can play with these expectations, subvert them.
The downside can be when an author "micromanages" too much and the prose becomes a dry documentary of events :P
Or worse, when an author simply wishes to lecture their captive audience and abandons the pretence of entertainment entirely (Terry Goodkind did this more and more in his later books. It makes some truly great stories with compelling characters VERY difficult to read)
And I love Jenny Nicholson too!
Funny, insightful and never unpleasant.
Been ages since she's popped up on my feed too >
Can you say the same with the princess bride?
Yeah! That one is probably closest to even since I have so much love for the movie. However, it's also a weird case where the author wrote the screenplay which is rare.
@@Bookborn plus he wrote the screen play for specific actors like Andre the Giant. The first person part of the book is very skip-able
I am definitely a book is better person. There are so many examples of why even with good adaptations... for example the movie of The Martian - the book got the comedic timing of moments better. For example, I remembered that the line about Aquaman talking to Whales and Dolphins being dropped as a 1 paragraph chapter right after NASA had just determined Watney was alive on Mars and they're sitting around discussing what must be going through his mind at that moment - cue page break, new chapter - 1 paragraph, page break - I legit laughed my ass off at that moment reading the book the first time because it was just perfectly dropped into place. In the film they had that line as something he said during selection in a flashback/video of why he was suited to the Mars mission. None of the comedy survived.
The one time I will generally consider even debatable as an exception to the "the book was better" is The Lord Of The Rings. Yes the books are masterpieces, absolute works of beauty and I will even say they are without doubt better than the films but also the books can get quite tedious, the lyrics of some of the songs take several pages to get through and whilst I love Tolkein's writings I don't perhaps need lyrics to just about every song sung by any character at any point in the saga. Neither do I need Tom Bombadil. I love the books, I adore the books. But, if I need a fix of Tolkein? I tend to watch the extended editions of the trilogy.
If you have not already, I highly recommend reading the novelization of revenge of the Sith. One of the best Star Wars books out in my opinion and way better than the movie even though I love love love the movie despite its many flaws
It’s so funny that I’ve somehow read the first two novelizations but never the third! I need to
I think for me is that I get too attached to the way I build the world and the characters in books inside my head. So when an adaptation inevitably fails to capture what was in my head while reading the book, I am disappointed. This is of course more applicable to when I have read the book before seeing the film so I'm usually I'm more open when I see the adaptation first then read the book.
I will say, I do think there's some degree of validity to the moralized perspective. And I say this as a film professional.
In film and TV there's a *lot* you can hide behind visual appeal. If you have a charming/talented/attractive actor, if you have an amazing cinematographer, if you have really good visual effects - you can hide massive plot holes and lack of character development with it all being easily forgiven by viewers. Any serial film series (the MCU, Transformers, Fast and the Furious, etc) has plenty evidence of this. That's mostly because the writing is one of many aspects of film. On the other hand, it's much more difficult to hide plot holes in books because you're reading the plot - the writing is all there is.
Now while I don't begrudge anyone enjoying "turn off your brain and look at the pretty pictures" entertainment (I mean, my IMDB is filled with titles like that), it doesn't require as much critical thinking to enjoy. That's actually kind of the point of it. It's escapism without effort - the kind so many people desperately want lately.
But there is something to be said for film and TV adaptations that do more than just show pretty pictures - because consistent storytelling and character driven plots make film and TV so much more entertaining. As you've been making videos on - The Wheel of Time (currently 814k words translated into 16 hours of visual media) is a good example of turning off your brain and enjoying the individual moments in a show that looks pretty nice. Look too closely at any of it, and nothing makes sense - the climaxes aren't earned, and are rarely even hinted at. But then you have Lord of the Rings (481k words translated into 9 hours of visual media - on par with Wheel of Time) which is not just a visual masterpiece, but the story is wonderfully logical, character driven, and has deeply earned climactic moments.
Again, I have no problem with people enjoying the Wheel of Time. There's a place for that sort of entertainment. But when I say the books are better, I mean the story is better - it's more logical, more consistent, is character driven, etc - all things the show could easily be if done by a more skilled writing team/ show runner. And it's disappointing to see it miss the mark so far.
But I digress.
The point is, written media takes much longer to consume, on top of not having the crutch of visuals. So when it's good, it's really good. But film and TV has a lot more that goes into it - so there's a lot more chances to forgive when one of the many parts falls short.
The only time I have ever thought the show was better was with the magician's minus the last season or two.
Yeah, I like different mediums, and tend to look for different things in those mediums. Books translated to movies or shows tend to lose depth, or gain fluff. You can make them more immersive in the move, but that doesn't always happen. Books _do_ provide more wiggle room for interpretation, though, since they're drawn in your head.
I actually like a lot of adaptations more than the books. Get ready to hate me:
• Lord of the Rings
• Wheel of Time
• One Piece
• Game of Thrones (minus, well, you know)
All of these books had issues that made them less fun to read than to watch.
And all this as someone who writes themselves
Wheel of Time? You have great courage to say that online. 😂😂
some of your choices there making my eyes twitch wildly. but...I...will...respect....you....nonetheless. =D
You like the Wheel of Time show better than the books? What makes you enjoy it more? No hate, just curious.
I don’t hate you at all is the thing! Those adaptations (other than WoT which is more contentious) are extremely highly regarded and I see no problem with you liking them more. Even wot which I have an up and down feelings about! It’s not personal Ya know?
@@hannahbrennan2131 Well I think they're pretty similar and largely suffer from the same problems, mainly pacing. I'm not a fan of jordan's writing style, so on screen the characters come to life better for me.
"I liked the book better": Lord of the Rings books.
"I consumed more of": the movies
Why? Because, while not a film connoisseur, I experience similar emotions in a shorter time frame. Similar, not the same. Because I have a musical background, the movies have one up on the books in that regard.
This was a great video! A+
And now I'm going to listen to the soundtrack again 😂!
YES!! this is such a good element to being in too: when I love the adaptation I’ll often see it more than read the book because of time commitment
A lot of people miss the point that it's an "adaptation" and therefore has to "adapt" to another medium. I am not a "book is better" guy. I'm a "book is different" guy.
I get what you're saying about books being able to get deeper into the main character's thoughts, but sometimes that can actually be a hindrance, especially when the potential of side characters is better than the main character. I think the best example of this is my prime example of where the adaptation was better than the book, which is the Magicians. Making it an ensemble improved it so much, and even the main character from the books, Quentin, became a better character because of how much everyone around him was written.
I think a book like Fourth Wing would really benefit from having side characters (many of whom were more interesting to me) are fleshed out a lot more in an ensemble format. I also feel if they did another Dresden files show they should make it a lot more of an ensemble, because Harry is far less interesting than the people around him
The LOTR books are better in my humble opinion. One of the things I noticed during the ROP backlash was that there was plenty of people that either forgot or didn’t notice how many changes Peter Jackson made to the LoTR adaptation and that Christopher Tolkien thought the films were “mindless action movies”, that’s not to mention the abomination of the hobbit films
I agree, the LOTR books are incredible, and honestly I don't think it's possible to fully and accurately adapt them to a visual medium. And I understand the purist pov, but for Christopher Tolkien to minimize the films that way was unfair (although, as much as I love the films, I suspect JRR Tolkien would have despised them as well). But I think Jackson's biggest success aside from being (more or less) faithful to the books was putting character arcs on screen whereas in the books, I feel like many of the arcs didn't exist or happened prior to the events of the book. It's something a purist might hate, but I feel it was the key to the success of the films.
Not sure where this rambling came from, but there you are 🤣
I am usually judging the adaptations on how true they stayed to the source material. The first Dune film stayed rather true to the source material so I appreciate the film. Yes the book has a lot of inner thoughts being written down which cannot be shown in film, however that are the limits of the medium. Same applies to Sandman they changed things but the changes were small and kept true to the overall story being told in the comics so I can appreciate it.
i often wonder why in a film adaptation they change something that wouldn't be hard to film
i.e the way jack dies in the film adaptation of the shining compared to the book death of him in the shining
People also seem to equate book better with film bad which is not always the case. They can be different and still good.
The Godfather movie is better than the book. Same with The Shining, Shawshank Redemption, Jurassic Park, Psycho, Solaris and 2001 A Space Odyssey.
I think the major problem with the screen is that whereas books have analogies and metaphors to enhance mental images with emotions, the director can only rely on the audience's familiarity with a prescribed visual language.
I mean how do you translate a sentence like this to the screen:
> The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't.
There's just no way...
Well.. it kinda depends, if there is or isn't any opportunity within that particular story to visually show that contrast of how bricks do not hang in the sky.
But, yeah, you're kinda right-even when movies or tv DO utilize metaphors or similes or certain things as analogous for other things or such(like werewolf movies using werewolfism as symbolic representation of puberty and/or vampirism being used as a metaphor or whatever for sexuality or for various societal divides or such), it depends on the viewer being able to do the internal work to pick up on or understand it, whereas with books the written language can for the most part largely do the work for the reader often enough with words such as "like" or "the way how" and so on.
But there are some filmmakers who really do put a ton of thought into the imagery they are or aren't using, in ways that really aren't all that different from what writers do with their word choice selections. It really depends. (And not every reader actually always enjoys or understands written metaphors and/or figurative language and such particularly well either-which I believe is one reason why 'flowery' or 'purple' prose gets such a bad rep sometimes, too.)
I think there's a reason why usually "the book is better" -
Movies have many different elements (the set itself, camera, actors, effects, music etc.),
so the script (== the actual story) is sometimes ignored.
Especially when the money spent on the script is negligible compared to the other elements of the movie, so it's easier to be ignored as "not important".
This is true even for adaptations (where the script is based on the original books),
since any adaptation changes the story... (e.g. the decision which parts to show and which parts to omit makes it a different story.)
Bottom line, usually (but not always) movies and TV don't invest much in the scripts themselves,
which makes them inferior to the books.
I think if fantasy adaptations were better this wouldn’t come off as snobby. I think it makes book readers get defensive when the adaptation is not that good. Especially to non book readers. If for example a non book reader didn’t like wheel of time. I think it will be natural for a book reader to be like “the books better”.
I'm definitely a "the book was better" person... until my wife always points out that my favorite movies include Wizard of Oz, LOTR, Somewhere In Time, Hunger Games, The Prestige, V for Vendetta, and on and on. I don't know why she chooses violence, but this is my life. 😛
Love the video ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ 👋🤓💡⬆
Books are always better for giving us the POV characters' thoughts.
But it doesn't help that there are a lot of bad film/TV adaptations. Some cut corners for budget reasons. Some are made by writers who don't understand/love the source material for the same reason book fans do.
I think what really sells either version for me is the talent of the filmmaker or author. For me, ive always felt the Harry Potter books were witty and funny in the way the story was actually told, something thats completely lost in the movies, so i blame that as the reason i never connected with the movies. On the flip side, i find just about any Stephen King book to be bloated and meandering due to the writing style, but i like a lot of the movies and even consider some adaptations to be the best in the horror genre.
I also liked the LOTR movies more, but I genuinely dont know if thats because i didnt read the books until last year and Ive seen the movies a dozen times each and consider them to be some of the greatest pieces of cinema in existence.
Also i didnt care for the Witcher books and slightly enjoyed the show more, but honestly it wasnt that good either and i couldnt bring myself to keep watching after season 1. The Witcher 3 video game though was adapted perfectly for the medium, and its rightfully considered one of the best adventure games out there due to the rich world being explored, the dozens of well realized characters, and a team behind it that really cared about highlighting what was good about the books (even if the author was a bit of a douche when it came to the adaptation and even sued them when they started making money because he assumed the games would be a complete failure). Yeah, im just really not a fan of that guy.
Anyway great vid, lots to think about!!
I just started really reading over the last few years. I've found two things. Reading a book after I've watched the movie/tv show lessens the book for me. I find myself looking forward to highlights from the adaptation, and I find myself glossing over details in the book. It really has lessened the story for me.
The opposite is also true. Watching something after I've read the book has really been a let down. They never meet my expectations. All the way down to what characters look like or sound like in my head. I have no expectations this will ever be perfect, how could it be. It's just doesn't hit the same.
The only exception I've found, is from Ready Player One. The book and movie are so completely different from each other, distinguishing them from each other is simple.
The book vs TV thing also kind of starts young, too. In school you get forced to engage in reading (I'm in my 40s, and I'm not going to read Harry Potter because the year that came out, I was obliged to endure Tom Brown's Schooldays, and I *will not* read about some little puke who goes to boarding school ever again), whereas the TV getting wheeled in generally indicated an incoming skive.
I usually tend to like the book better. I can think of a few examples where I preferred the movie. I remember liking the movie Holes better than the book.Though it's been awhile since I read the book or watched the movie. I think it's hard making a good movie adaptation of book. I find that the adaptation either changes too much of the source material or tries to be exactly the book, neither extreme in my opinion makes a good adaptation.
While I often like the book better, there are exceptions. Most often for comedies, like The Princess Bride or Big Trouble, where the film can use comedic timing and performances to enhance the delivery of jokes that just don't have the same impact when read.
Yes. It's not "all the books are better" but "I love books"
YES, EXACTLY. This is it! and so concise lol