Okay, so here we go! If you know me then you will know that I am an avid book reader and will argue you with you any day about why I think books are better, however, I want to go into this in more detail.
Now of course, I give great props to the movie industry but I think there are just some markers that I think are missed. I think that one of the key ones that should be mentioned is casting. Don't get me wrong, I think that some castings of films are absolutely perfect for the movie that they're acting in. Let's take The Notebook, for example. Who could imagine anyone other than Ryan Gosling playing the protagonist? The amount of emotion and portrayal of character would be completely different and people probably wouldn't have viewed it as they see it now. On the other end of the spectrum, there are castings that just don't really appeal to the viewer. The main example that I think of is the acting in the Twilight movies, but I have not read the books so I can't comment on if the casting is all that accurately. The problem that underlies here is that there is a visual image of what the character looks like and it's the same for every person. With books, you can take the description that you're given and twist it into your own person, imagining each feature. If someone came up to you and said something along the lines of, "Oh, this character has brown hair and blue eyes and is super tall. It's a slightly tanned male", your conceptualisation of this character is going to be completely different to mine. I think that is better because even though certain mannerisms and features are written down, even down to the tone of their voice, every person's image is different and there is something beautiful in that because the character is loved all the same, even though we're not confined to viewing them in a specific way like we do in movies. Yes, I know it's going to be argued that you can't hear somebody speak in a book like you can watching a movie but I think that is actually more helpful. With only reading the words, you're able to focus on exactly what the character is saying and trying to get across, without focusing on how their tone fluctuates or whether they say it with too little or too much emotion.
Most of the time when I have had this debate with people, the main argument I get is that books are too long and tedious so they'd rather watch the movie that only lasts for two hours and shows everything. It doesn't. As someone who reads frequently, there are quite a lot of things that movies miss out that the book shows and that's obviously going to happen. Something that takes a couple of days to read, depending on how fast you read, is not going to be condensed down into a two hour movie without missing out parts of the plot or parts of dialogue. I'm going to use an example now that many people know upsets me a lot, Percy Jackson. The first book of the Percy Jackson series, titled the The Lightning Thief, was made into a movie. Surely that's great, one of your favourite series being turned into a movie? No. For those who have never read the series, it's about demigods (half-god, half-human) who are the kids of the Greek gods, pretty cool concept. (I think I'm going to make a separate post on the flaws I find in the movie in comparison to the book). Basically, the movie version changed most of the plot, including the largest plot twist so a different character was antagonised, which then meant that if they made more movies then it would be going even further away from the books than it already had, as well as changing the appearance of some of the main characters, which have their descriptions explicitly written. Hollywood has this habit of over-dramatising scenes or changing the plot from the book to make it more interesting for readers but I disagree with it. If you are going to make a movie out of a book, read the book and try to incorporate as much as possible, as well as not overdramatising to the point that it becomes cliche and uninteresting.
Now I know that it is unfair to compare the two of them so critically as they are both two completely different types of media and both are commended for the amount of hard work that goes into them. I admit that I myself do enjoy going to the cinema to watch a movie and cry my eyes out (not an unlikely occurrence) because I admire all of the effort that has been put into it and how well the actors portray their characters because I know it isn't their fault if the characters aren't like the book. They're just following the script and giving their best performance. It isn't particularly anyone's fault because the writers can't be subjected to monotonous work of copying out dialogue from a book word for word and I admit it could end up boring that way. What I don't appreciate with criticism between the two is the look that I am often given when I say that I prefer books. It's often an expression mixed between disgust and confusion, but surely it isn't so difficult to see my reasoning? It isn't absurd for someone to prefer a book over watching a movie, and yes, I understand that not everyone enjoys reading but some people do, so the face and comments about how that is even possible are pretty futile in my eyes because it's just my preference because I've loved reading since I was little. Next time you come across this debate with someone and they say which one prefer, don't argue straight away. Ask them why and maybe you can see a different side and gather a better appreciation for the type of media you don't favour.
This idea might be pretty farfetched but you have to let me explain. Cost. You're probably staring at this going, 'Chloe, why?' but hear me out. Often when a new movie comes out in the cinema, you'll go and watch it there. Now cinemas aren't cheap. It's usually like £15 just for the ticket and then snacks and drinks added on top. All of that piles up. If you want to see the movie again then you have to pay all of that again for the experience, until it comes out on DVD. When it comes out on DVD, sometimes they're free to stream with certain broadband packages but many people choose to buy the DVD so they can watch the movie over and over again. If you add all of that cost up, it isn't exactly the cheapest thing in the world. Books, on the other hand, are like one time purchase things. Once you've bought the book, it's yours then to read as many times as you want until the spine breaks and pages fall out. Hardback books can be quite expensive but on the whole, it's cheaper than seeing a movie in the cinema and buying the DVD. Some people probably just wait until the DVD comes out but that means trying to avoid spoilers for as long as possible, which is definitely going to be pretty hard, because movies don't come out on DVD that quickly after they've premiered in the cinema. Books can be preordered and ordered as soon as they come out so there isn't really that much of a problem, unless you're unable to afford the book and shipping then you're in exactly the same predicament and there isn't actually much that you can do.
If you couldn't tell, I'm pretty passionate about this topic so there was no like driving initiative for this blog post, other than the fact that I wanted to. There is probably so much that I could go into in this post but I obviously don't want to make it too long and bore the absolute life out of you guys, so I won't keep rambling too much more but there is another point that I think I need to make, and that is the idea that you get to see people's vulnerabilities a bit more. Now I'm not saying that movies don't do that but I think the emotion is different. In movies the emotion comes from the characters and the actors, but where I think that it differs from books is the sensitivity in which a topic is explained. The tone in writing is often different when an author is expressing their emotions through their work in comparison to writing just mundane experiences or something that they don't relate to. Bringing back Percy Jackson again (I know, I know, I'm sorry! Rick Riordan is just incredible and you can't change my mind), his level of empathy for these demigods and the appropriate representation comes from a place of personal experience since his son has ADHD and dyslexia, a common trait amongst these characters. You see the comparison between this and then the scenes where Percy is fighting against these mythological creatures because there is truth to it. You could write the most amazing book and have amazing amounts of research of a specific topic and it can touch so many people but those subtle undertones of raw emotion are missed. I'm not saying that these books aren't good but I'm saying that these experience can seem more real if they were real to the author. When writing a script, a lot of these things can be missed because the inner thought processes of the characters aren't portrayed because the sole focus is on the dialogue and action.
I feel like this is a good place to end this before people think I'm really sad and write about nothing else. In a brief summary, I tend to prefer the book over the movie but I think that the film industry produce some masterpieces and should be applauded greatly. I can understand both sides of the argument but I think I'll stick on the side of the book nerds.
See ya,
Chloe xx