The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Silver Screen => Topic started by: action9000 on July 30, 2006, 03:21:06 AM
-
This topic has come up many, Many times in my life, both online and in real-life experiences.
It seems as though many people who read a book before watching a film interpretation of it generally prefer the book to the movie because of the increased depth, time to discuss everything, detail work, etc. etc.
First of all, let me state the thesis of this post:
I believe that books and movies are for different audiences with different needs. Books are not better than movies. Movies are not better than books. Which is better To You is based on what you desire out of them.
I am interested on getting a discussion going on this topic, as I thought about a concept while I was at work (I have a fairly mindless job :p):
An analogy:
Book -> Movie =
MIDI -> MP3.
In other words,
A book is similar to a movie, just as a MIDI of a song is similar to an MP3 or CD version of that song.
(I know, I know, 'here goes action9000 again with his MIDI junk. MIDI this and MIDI that, when will he stop?' Well, the answer is "never" :P: LOL. It's just an example that came to mind when I was at work. I don't intend this to be a MIDI discussion, and I apologize if it turns into one! B) )
(if you just want to get to the point, skip this section)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What?
Allow me to explain this principle that I noticed:
A book contains all of the information needed to interpret the story the way the reader desires. The 'instructions' are all located in the book. The book contains information that can be interpretted differently depending on the reader, such as how a room or character may look, or the tone of voice a character speaks in, or even the distance from one location to another. Everything can be interpretted as the reader desires, with full control over the story experience.
A movie contains a "precompiled" rendering of the story into an easy-to-take-in, "simple pleasures" experience. No strings attached, the film presents its interpretation cleanly and efficiently to the watcher. The data is organized, and everything, right down to the expression on a character's face has been pre-determined. As a result, less interpretation and brainwork is necessary for the watcher, and the easy-access enjoyment is within the grasp of anyone willing to plug the movie into their video player. It's quick, easy entertainment in a small fraction of the time as reading a whole book.
How does this relate to the MIDI/MP3 comment?
A MIDI file contains all the information needed to interpret the song the way the listener wants. The 'instructions' are all located within the MIDI file. The file contains information that can be interpretted differently depending on the sound card or MIDI synthesizer that's reading the file. On every sound card, a MIDI file will sound differently. Load a MIDI into a dedicated orchestra synthesizer and it will sound like a live orchestra to anyone but the most critical audiophile. Load it into a techno synthesizer and suddenly it has a completely different sound. The data can be altered freely to fit the needs of the listener. MIDI files may need to be tweaked to suit the synthesizer that it's playing on. MIDIs attempt to be a "one-size-fits-all" technology, sounding good on any synthesizer, but that simply doesn't happen often.
An MP3 contains a "precompiled" rendering of the song into an easy-to-take-in, "simple pleasures" experience. no strings attached, the MP3 presents its interpretation cleanly and efficiently to the listener. The data is organized, and everything, right down to how hard the guitar is played 31 seconds into the song, has been predetermined. As a result, less interpretation and tinkering is necessary for the listener, and the easy-access enjoyment is within the grasp of anyone willing to hit Play on their sound system. It's quick, easy entertainment, often in higher audio quality than MIDI synthesizers on many computers, and can be accessed instantly. Mp3s are designed to sound the exact same on any system they are played on, and they do (minus the speakers they're playing on).
Many people will argue that an MP3 is better than a MIDI file. Many people will also argue that books are better than movies. I consider this simple proof that neither one is better. Both of these technologies use the Exact same set of principles, yet the preferences contradict. It comes down to the needs and wants of the end user, and for what purpose they want the movie or book for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My point?
A book is no different from a MIDI file. They serve a very similar purpose: They're flexible, and easy to be interpretted to the needs and wants of anyone who wants to give them the effort to do so. These offer far more flexibility than the alternative, however they are in a more raw form, and require more conscious effort of the reader/user to be fully functional.
A Movie is no different from an MP3/CD. They serve a very similar purpose:
They're pre-compiled entertainment, which can be enjoyed at a much lower cost of time and effort. For many people, these are the media of choice because of their ease of use, high level of entertainment, and easy accessibility. These can be enjoyed with relatively little effort. The downside? There's little room for interpretation (compared to a book/MIDI) and there are few tweaking possibilities for the end user.
As for my personal opinion, I prefer movies to books because I am not willing to devote the time and effort needed to read a book. I enjoy a good movie very much, and I'm more than content with that.
MIDI files are often not high-enough quality for me, and I prefer MP3s to MIDIs, though I use MIDI technology as a starting point for all my work.
Everything has its place. It's just understanding that one is not necessarily better nor worse.
-
I do agree with you. I don't understand why some people think a movie adaptation is horrible just because of parts that were cut or simplified. It's like they forget that it is difficult, if not impossible, to squeeze in every thing in a book that could range between 200 to 700 pages, sometimes even longer than that, onto a movie that could be 2-3 hrs long, maybe shorter.
-
like they forget that it is difficult, if not impossible, to squeeze in every thing in a book that could range between 200 to 700 pages, sometimes even longer than that, onto a movie that could be 2-3 hrs long, maybe shorter.
Exactly.
The fact that it is nearly impossible to make a movie as complete as a book, is why some people decide that the books are better than the movies.
I don't understand why some people think a movie adaptation is horrible just because of parts that were cut or simplified.
I agree. To me, saying that a movie is bad because it is oversimplified is...well...an oversimplified way of explaining the situation. :P: Many people don't seem to understand how books and movies serve different purposes.
-
In general, the book is better than the movie version, with very few exceptions. There have been some great book adaptations, I will admit, but I've never once preferred the movie. Books leave more up to the imagination, visually, and they give the more complete story. Films lay out what something looks like, but give less detail, and I like it the other way around more.
-
The only book I read that I ever considered much better than the movie was Catwoman. And that was only because I read the book first and then watched the movie. I found it was easier for me to appreciate both the movie and the book if I watch the movie first and then read the book.
-
I second WeirdRaptor on this one.
I think the only book/film combination where I actually seemed to enjoy the film more than the book its based on is Jurassic Park, and the simple reason for the reversal is that I'm not big into science fiction, or genetics, as in-depth as Crichton's book is, so the simplified movie is much easier for me to understand.
I like the book = MIDI to movie = mp3 analogy...certainly fitting, one has all the material you need, the rest only about 20% of it (well the mp3 anyway).
:lol:
-
Oh, yeah, I forgot about "Jurassic Park" for a moment. :slap Okay, there is actually one movie adaptatin I preferred over the book, and it was "Jurassic Park". For the same reasons as Petrie, too.
-
Ah yes, I remember Jurassic Park. Loved that book, as well as The Lost World.
-
Regretably many book adaptation tend to blend out too much for their plot to be more than a summary of the book. On the other hand action scenes which have nothing to do with the book at all are often included. The sense stories in written form make is often very twisted (therefore I don't think the MIDI > MP3 annalogy is fitting in all cases). The Harry Potter movies are a perfect example for all these shortcomings.
One example of a movie (TV series to be precise) that surpassed the books it was based on is "The Animals of Farthing Wood". The movie characters were much more individual than the characters in the book were, there were new story elements while almost everything from the books had been taken into account as well.
-
The sense stories in written form make is often very twisted (therefore I don't think the MIDI > MP3 annalogy is fitting in all cases).
I don't think I know quite what you mean. Could you perhaps reword this? Thanks. B)
-
The best example is to be found in Harry Potter movies. So many details have been left out in that story. Take the third book and movie for example. In the movie they never ever give away any details about the nature of wormtails betrayal. They never ever make it clear that he and Harry's father were good friends. It really comes down to less than a summary in the movie.
That is not so extreme in case of good midis and mp3s.
-
I do agree that a movie cuts out details, sometimes important ones, but I don't think that necessarily means the movie is worse than the book, and vice versa.
-
I suppose it is unfair for me to comment in this discussion, as I rarely read books. I'd just prefer to watch the movie over reading the book.
I tend to take in the media (books, TV, movies) only when quite tired and considering going to bed. I'll lie in bed and watch TV or a movie, when I'm too tired to think about picking up a book. To be honest, I don't have many books in this house. When I'm awake, I tend to be either at my computer or out of the house.
For my lifestyle, a movie is quite enjoyable and preferrable to books, for the most part. Something I would love to see though: A Book series for The Land Before Time would be quite intriguing, however. B)
-
I do tend to watch movies more often than I read books. In my lifetime, I've only read 7 300+ page books on my own will.
-
I really love books. I guess it is partly a matter of how people are brought up. From an early age on my parents read books to me and my sister (exciting stories and fairy tales). While I admit that I'm not sitting around with a book ALL the time I still read very much, much of what I read is nonfiction. I certainly appreciate movies and movies can actually come up to the books they are based on (though this is something everybody must decide for him or herself), yet the descriptive way of books very often surpasses the prescriptive way of movies if one has the fantasy to imagine what is being told by mere words rather than firmly set pictures.
-
Something I would love to see though: A Book series for The Land Before Time would be quite intriguing, however. B)
I think we'd all love to see that.
Excellent points, Malte. Books just tend to have the more complete story.
-
i agree. we need lbt book serries. books give greater detail.
-
You mean like novels of the movies?
-
Either that or new stories that could be classified as LBT 14, 15, 16, etc.
-
Ew, no. I'd hope that the books would go off in their own direction, rather than just being more of the same with the rest of the sequels. Give me the rights to write a LBT book, and I'd give you a 150-200 page kid's book without picture, aside from images I'd like to have at the beginning of each chapter.
-
I also like the idea of converting the old stories into *detailed* novels, at least 200 or 250 pages in length. This could create some interesting backstories and show some powerful character development. The Littlefoot/Cera/Ali crush debate could probably be settled once and for all. :lol :P:
Saaaay, now There's an idea for a fanfic! Take an existing LBT film and write it as a detailed novel with new elements that fit the story.
-
There are books of the original movie. There are quite a few books containing little land before time stories which are not part of the movies.
Over here in Germany there are books of the original movie and two which also contain LBT 2 and 3. There are not those books with the little stories over here, but there were six audio plays based on these stories sold over here.
books give greater detail.
Maybe it is the other way round. Movies give more detail on how everything looks. One could write many pages just to describe the background and details and everthing shown in a TV scene. A book won't bother for example to mention that there is a pen lying on the table in the background unless the pen is of any importance. So while the book doesn't mention the pen it is up to the reader to decide what the place superficialy described in the book is looking like.
However, there are also things the movies cannot show clearly (thoughts, emotions, motivations etc.). While they can play with facial expressions or (in rare cases) with character monologues books are usually better in telling about the things which you can't see.
We don't tend to watch movies that take as long as it would to read a book telling the story of the movie (provided we are talking of somebody reading at normal speed). So very often the movie makers (have to) cut out details. This is indeed where books do give greater detail, whenever such cutting was necessary.
-
Maybe it is the other way round. Movies give more detail on how everything looks. One could write many pages just to describe the background and details and everthing shown in a TV scene. A book won't bother for example to mention that there is a pen lying on the table in the background unless the pen is of any importance. So while the book doesn't mention the pen it is up to the reader to decide what the place superficialy described in the book is looking like.
Hmm, I never actually thought of it that way, but you're right. I suppose authors feel that the reader can add in any background elements they wish, whereas this principle does not apply for movies, when objects can't simply be imagined into existance.
Over here in Germany there are books of the original movie and two which also contain LBT 2 and 3.
Haha, wow! I've not heard of those before; very cool! B)
-
It is quite a pity that nobody here knows German, for those audio plays which I mentioned are really gorgeous. They elaborate the stories which in the books have been written for kids only and therefore are told in very simple sentences. In the audio plays they made really quite something of it.
-
I wasn't talking details as in visuals. Of course movies have better detail in how stuff looks, you're looking right at it. I was talking details as in story complexity, character developement, descriptions on how things work, and such. Books, when it comes to things like that, have movies and TV beat, hands down.
-
Definitely true. Unlike movies, which can only work with facial expressions or in rare cases monologues, books can give much more detail about what a person is thinking, feeling, developing etc. Anything that cannot be seen with the eye.
-
I'd be interested in an LBT book series.. :)
-
There is a series of books available in America and Great Britain, yet regretably the stories are written for very young kids. While the basic ideas etc. for the stories are really good, the storeis are told in short and simple sentences without any details. There are LBT books which have not been written as simple, but they are book adaptations of the original movie rather than any new series.
-
I've seen those. Don't bother. You might as well just watch the original movie or the sequels for the price of the those, because they're actually no better.
-
I suppose this is one reason why we have fanfics. The lack of good LBT literature has inspired fans to write some of their own.
-
I've seen those. Don't bother. You might as well just watch the original movie or the sequels for the price of the those, because they're actually no better.
Nonetheless I do not mourn for a single cent I paid for them. Some contained pictures from outcut land before time scenes, another one actually contained chapters with scenes that had not been part of the movie. I'm quite sure that some of that stuff was actually meant to be part of the movie, but was either not produced or cut out.
-
Well, the author had to get them from somewhere, so I'm guessing they're dropped scenes and concepts.