Reply to Topic
I think that there are two issues at play in terms of the "book is better" bias.
The first is that the book always comes first, right? So very often there are aspects of the story or character that people get attached to. In the process of adapting books to film, changes sometimes get made and at times they fly in the face of why someone loved the book in the first place. A character who was described as being plain looking and awkward suddenly looks gorgeous. When you feel a kinship with a book, such changes can feel like a betrayal.
It is also often the case that, just out of pragmatism, things need to be cut from film adaptations. I like the most recent version of Count of Monte Cristo, but then I read the book and was like, DANG!. The film version cuts out over half of the story. So if you are familiar with the book, important interactions or events are just suddenly missing from the story and you feel their loss.
I think that in the right hands, a story that originated in a book can be given something extra by being put on screen. But more often, a successful story is soullessly put on screen without real thought as to how to keep the magic of the book.
I can't think of a case where I've read a book and seen a film and thought that the film was better. I have been really impressed with some adaptations, but even my favorite adaptations are not better than their source material, in my opinion.
The first is that the book always comes first, right? So very often there are aspects of the story or character that people get attached to. In the process of adapting books to film, changes sometimes get made and at times they fly in the face of why someone loved the book in the first place. A character who was described as being plain looking and awkward suddenly looks gorgeous. When you feel a kinship with a book, such changes can feel like a betrayal.
It is also often the case that, just out of pragmatism, things need to be cut from film adaptations. I like the most recent version of Count of Monte Cristo, but then I read the book and was like, DANG!. The film version cuts out over half of the story. So if you are familiar with the book, important interactions or events are just suddenly missing from the story and you feel their loss.
I think that in the right hands, a story that originated in a book can be given something extra by being put on screen. But more often, a successful story is soullessly put on screen without real thought as to how to keep the magic of the book.
I can't think of a case where I've read a book and seen a film and thought that the film was better. I have been really impressed with some adaptations, but even my favorite adaptations are not better than their source material, in my opinion.
But I can also recognize the fact that I have such biases, and that they shouldn't lead me to any kind of serious conclusion when I compare the two mediums, or create hierarchies for them. It's hard for me to not feel this general wisdom that books are inherently better, rarely takes account the kind of biases that lead us to the conclusion 'but, of course, the book is better'. And worse, it also seems to lead towards it being some kind of intellectual heresy in sometimes movies might in many ways be a preferred artform. Because, frankly, that's usually my own personal conclusion, and I still somehow manage to love books (and, yeah, I probably love heresy a fair bit too, so maybe I should stop complaining)
From personal experience, since the vast majority of books I've read that are supposed to be great are much too frequently middling (much more so than with films) I've got to admit the championing of books above all else does sometimes baffle me a little. I can't even count how many time I have gotten half way through a book and though to myself, "man, I'd like to see this as a movie, but I sure couldn't give a **** if I read another page of this ****". And conversely, when I see a bad movie, I rarely think to myself "Hmmm, maybe I should pick this book up". So I'm obviously operating on my own pro-movie biases here somewhat.
Admittedly, alot of my book disappointment happens in regards to more modern novels. And, as I've admitted many times before, I think the vast majority of novels that have been written in the past thirty or forty years (at least that I've read) are dog ****. My feelings for some time have been (ironically considering my argument) most succesful authors these days (both critically and commercially) seem to write more with an idea of an eventual movie adaptation in mind, and less about developing a personal literary voice that might make adaptations more difficult. Because of this, I think I would struggle to name five contemporary authors who have any kind of distinctive style, and if you know anything about me, having a distinct authorial voice is everything to me. So from my vantage point, when a post-1970's novel gets itself adapted, it is moving itself from an artform that I feel has grown almost completely inert, to an artform (cinema) that still feels fairy devoted to the notion of auteurism.
But, because I can acknowledge this bias, I'm not in any hurry to talk about how movies are inherently better than books. Because I think I couldn't help but be wrong in saying that. Ultimately, I just think its silly to hold one artform above another (even though I think its fun to speak of preferences, which is of course a fun loop hole to get out of this discussion entirely, but I am only programmed to speak in theoreticals, so I imagine I will be stuck in some sort of imaginary discussion about this forever, hoooray). The basic truth of all of this is that each of these mediums have elements they excel in and areas where they are less adept. They also both have the power to move and enlighten in vastly different ways, which is really what I believe everyone should try and most focus on, instead of all the divisive rhetoric!
As long as we can all just agree that theatre is clearly the lowest medium for art, let's just all be happy that movie and books and painting and music are so so much better than that. Because blech, ammirite?
