The debate between books and their movie adaptations has been an ongoing debate for a long time. Nobody can agree. People have arguments about classic movie adaptations like the Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings series. So several members of the Newspaper staff sat down to settle the dispute. Olivia C will be arguing in favor of books. And Olivia F will be arguing in favor of the movie adaptations.
Books are better than movies because they have more detail than movies and you get to learn and retain more information about the story compared to seeing books as movies. A lot of times, movies cut out important parts of the plot. A lot of Sophomores just finished reading The Kite Runner and then we watched the movie. But one of the biggest problems that we all had was that the film chopped out a major part of the plot that affected the characters more than a lot of other parts that the movie kept. People who know the Harry Potter books and movies well, know that there are significant differences between the two because the movies cut out parts of the book’s plot. Movie cutouts happen to save time, but by doing that the audience doesn’t get to know all the details that made the book so good because the movie didn’t include it.
Movies and books are entirely different mediums and thus cannot be compared in the same ways. There are certain plots that simply don’t make sense from a screenwriting perspective. Books cannot be translated to the screen verbatim without sacrificing stylistic features, audience engagement, and coherence. So, certain creative liberties must be taken so as to conform to the mode of expression. Action and suspense must be shown (not told!) so the pacing will be different from in a book. Exposition should be succinct, as opposed to books that have the freedom to meander when providing backstory. So movies developed from books will be slightly different because an adaptation simply can’t live up to its origin.
The film The Darkest Minds was released six years after the original novel was released in 2012. The book got a 15% rotten tomatoes which is really bad, and that rating is for a reason. Now I’ve read the book enough times that I know the plot like the back of my hand. When the movie was released I watched it because I figured it couldn’t be that bad. But I was wrong. The movie added pieces to the story that were not part of the original book. They had to get permission from Alexandra Bracken before starting the production. The producers are not the original owners of the novel, therefore they do not have the right to go adding things that don’t make sense to the story and change what Bracken envisioned. And the same thing happens to dozens of other books and their authors. Movie producers edit more than needs to be edited like they’re trying to make the story their own even though it’s not.
Movies aren’t always going to be better than books, but the point of a movie isn’t to outdo that which it is sourced from. Movies are meant to tell a story but the way that creators go about doing so is ultimately their decision. Additionally, movies can be enjoyed with other people. The experience of reading a book is a solitary task. Even if you’re in a book club or listening to a read-aloud, books must be enjoyed alone. Movies bring people together! The experience of watching a movie in a theater is unmatched. Where else would you have an awkward first date? The cultural significance of film matches (if not outweighs!) the cultural significance of literature.
No matter what, the narratives we love will always live on. Whether on the page or on the screen, the importance of storytelling remains paramount to culture as a whole. So long as we honor the roots of our favorite tales, adaptations maintain a valid position in the entertainment industry.