Book vs Movie
Book vs. Movies
A long time has passed since the idea that “The book is better than the movie” was accepted without question. There are almost no exceptions. Some key reasons why the film version of a book is so lacking relates to, one, the lack of depth of the story, two time constraints and, three, the inability for producers to include the full content of a story.
Most of the time, if the movies follow an original script, and there is no book version to compare it to, it is most likely to be seen as a great piece of work, however, when a film is present to be compared against a novel, it is inevitably not as great as the original work. One such reason such movies are subject to criticism of this kind is that a lot of arcs and plots in a story are left out. (An example of this would be considering the Harry Potter books compared to their counter part in film.) Large portions of story were taken out of the fifth movie, “The Order of the Phoenix” where all of the Quidditch season was taken out, along with Ron and Harry’s fight.
Not much thought is needed to understand that written forms of story allows for much deeper and detailed description of certain characters and scenery that is almost impossible to capture and display in film. A writer can present a vast visual land scape using the protagonist’s eyes, but a director must either use narration or dialogue to reveal inside a character’s mind to the audiences.
There is also a limitation on films due to their format. A three-hour film is considered extremely long and lengthy and most directors and filmmakers generally try and cut crop and edit out unnecessary and uneventful parts of a certain book to fit a golden rule of thumb that allows for movies to be about 2 hours long. Because a book adaptation is meant to tell the gist of the story, it is usually concentrated on making it possible to grasp the overall plot in one sitting. This strategy is at odds with the priorities reflected by novelists in
A long time has passed since the idea that “The book is better than the movie” was accepted without question. There are almost no exceptions. Some key reasons why the film version of a book is so lacking relates to, one, the lack of depth of the story, two time constraints and, three, the inability for producers to include the full content of a story.
Most of the time, if the movies follow an original script, and there is no book version to compare it to, it is most likely to be seen as a great piece of work, however, when a film is present to be compared against a novel, it is inevitably not as great as the original work. One such reason such movies are subject to criticism of this kind is that a lot of arcs and plots in a story are left out. (An example of this would be considering the Harry Potter books compared to their counter part in film.) Large portions of story were taken out of the fifth movie, “The Order of the Phoenix” where all of the Quidditch season was taken out, along with Ron and Harry’s fight.
Not much thought is needed to understand that written forms of story allows for much deeper and detailed description of certain characters and scenery that is almost impossible to capture and display in film. A writer can present a vast visual land scape using the protagonist’s eyes, but a director must either use narration or dialogue to reveal inside a character’s mind to the audiences.
There is also a limitation on films due to their format. A three-hour film is considered extremely long and lengthy and most directors and filmmakers generally try and cut crop and edit out unnecessary and uneventful parts of a certain book to fit a golden rule of thumb that allows for movies to be about 2 hours long. Because a book adaptation is meant to tell the gist of the story, it is usually concentrated on making it possible to grasp the overall plot in one sitting. This strategy is at odds with the priorities reflected by novelists in