BLOGGER TEMPLATES - TWITTER BACKGROUNDS

Saturday, November 20, 2010

The Book Was Better

How many times have we both heard and employed the phrase, “The book was better”? Well, of course it was. No one is disputing that fact. I mean, let’s be honest, it’s a pretty accurate statement at least 99.9% of the time. However, although I do agree that reading is important, and more people should actively read (I’ve only just recently started forcing myself to), I do believe that many people overuse this phrase and treat movie adaptations a little unfairly.






Yes, adaptation accuracy is important. It’s important to get the look of the characters and the sequence of events as close to what was originally written as possible. I mean, Superman wasn’t blonde, Frodo doesn’t die and Hermione Granger never had a quickie with Cedric Diggory in the broom closet; so it only makes sense that these details never surface in the movie adaptations of these stories. But an audience should understand when to treat a movie and a book differently.



Now, again, it’s incredibly unlikely that a film will be able to match the amount of detail that a book offers. This is because unlike books and video games, films have a time limit. There’s only so long that they can make it before the audience gets bored. Generally a two-hour film is a good length. Out of sheer popularity, two-and-a-half hours will work as well, but three hours is pushing it. Even at three hours, however, there will have to be things that are cut in film. You simply cannot fit a 600-page book (or a 40-hour game for that matter) into a 2-3 hour timeslot. You’re better off converting it into a TV show, but then of course the production value isn’t as high.


The audience has to understand that there will be cuts. As long as the most important events and characters are in there, then that is ultimately what’ matters most. But sometimes there are scenes cut for other reasons too. There may be aspects that go unexplained because there just wasn’t enough time to show them coming to said conclusion. There probably could have been enough time throw in a quick explanation but it may also have ended up coming off as random. There will also be times when, let’s face it, it’s Hollywood, and they’re going to exploit Hollywood ideals, like romance. That’s a problem, yes, but most people are comforted by the concept of love, so it’s only an issue if it takes time away from what could have otherwise been used to further the plot.


Other cuts may include moments lacking relevance to the plot. There are plenty of wonderful situations that occur in books, but not all are directly relevant to the overall conflict, and would thus take up time that could have been spent on more important moments. Or perhaps there are situations that only the true fans that had read the book would appreciate anyway. The filmmakers are tasked with the job of making a film not only for the fans who already read the book, but also for Mary Jane and Jimmy John who haven’t yet read the book and are seeing this movie because they thought the trailer looked cool. And then there’s the issue of censorship, in which some scenes may be omitted because they were to graphic, macabre, adult, or unnecessary in some other fashion for the marketed audience. Although I’m a personal advocate against extreme censorship, some censorship can be understandable considering the target audience.


All I’m saying is that most of the time the book is in fact better. But no one should enter the theatre hoping that the film will in any way mirror the book. Instead, one should merely hope that they grasp the feel of the book, as well as the overall look of the characters and environments, and that it at least resembles the events as closely as it can. Altogether the film experience and the book experience are going to be two separate things, and they should be enjoyed as such. This is in no way to imply that all movie adaptations are equal. Some don’t even deserve the grace of holding whatever title they bare. Making a couple of necessary changes and bastardizing the book altogether are two very different things. In the end, as long as we don’t change the ending of Percy Jackson or give the Green Lantern the same dorky persona as Peter Parker, the overall movie experience shouldn’t be encumbered by fan outcry simply because a few details were overlooked.

0 comments: