I LIKED THE BOOK, BUT THE MOVIE WAS BETTER

I liked the Book, but the Movie Was Better
By The Lazy Film Critic
One of the most tired arguments as to why someone didn’t like a movie is to say, “The book was better.” I have never understood this argument. I mean that literally; I do not understand what this argument even means.
A movie is a story communicated through visuals and audio, and with the exception of the occasional Mel Gibson indulgence, requires little to no reading. A book is a story which is entirely dependent on reading (if you don’t count those cheaters who listen to audio books). Comparing the two media is like saying, “I liked the painting but the opera was better.” It’s like comparing apples and an heirloom pendant of an orange.
Full disclosure: I don’t read fiction because I don’t like reading fiction. I prefer to get my fiction in the form of movies. That being said, the argument still holds because the premise underlying the statement “The book was better” is that somehow the two media are competing to best communicate a story. They’re not in competition any more than a Hemingway book can take the place of actually going to the sea.
Movies and books both communicate a story but that’s as far as the comparison goes. Yes, a book is better at giving you a richer description of the psychological motivations of a character. Yes, you’re a genius if you can read a Tom Clancy book versus the rest of us morons who prefer listening to Sean Connery’s Scottish-Russian accent. But movies aren’t trying to be a book. If they were, you would just have frame after frame of words and you wouldn’t have to mess around with all that unnecessary artistic direction, music score, set design, cinematography and editing which makes movie-making so cumbersome.
I love the movie “The Silence of the Lambs”. It was so good that I actually read the book afterward. But while I was reading the book I wasn’t criticizing it for not being visual enough (although a “Silence of the Lambs” picture book might be a fun addition to any family’s book shelf).
The only reason people like saying “The book was better” is because they want the pat on the back that they read. What strikes me as funny about that though is that people are usually bragging about a book like “Twilight” or “Harry Potter”, not exactly modern equivalents to “Finnegan’s Wake”.
So, okay book-readers, here’s your official pat on the back from all of us movie lovers. Now here’s a much harder whack on your head to get you to snap out of your snobbery and realize that movies don’t want to be books any more than books want to be movies.

The Movie Guys serve up videos about movies, movies and more movies. Click the above text link to watch!
Capsule reviews include "The Ghost Writer" and "The Lovely Bones". Quick plot, quick opinion and we're out.

I’m not sure I’m completely down with the notion that just because books and films are different media that there is not validity and justification in comparing how well they convey the same story. It’s like comparing a photograph of a person with a painting of that same person. Yes, they’re different forms of expression and yes they may both have pros and cons related to those differences – but it’s still not invalid to ask “Well, which one would you rather put up on your wall?”
To my way of thinking, at least, movies and books both fundamentally exist to tell STORIES – and if a movie is adapting a book, it is making its bid to tell the same (or at least very similar) story as that book. How well suited the media is for telling that particular story, or how well someone makes use of that media to tell the story, is not an unreasonable means of assessment. Is it the ONLY means? Of course not – and there can still be positive and successful elements apart from story (performance, photography, music, etc.) But look at it this way: any time a book is adapted into a screenplay, someone has been freed from the heavy lifting of coming up with an original idea; that being the case, I think it’s perfectly valid, if you are familiar with the book from whence it sprang, to gauge its success or failure at least partly on how well it makes use of that story and adapts it to its own ends.
You make a valid argument about the ridiculousness of comparing two different art forms. And I used to make that argument. I don’t read a lot of fiction, either. I read a lot of biographies, magazines and comedy stuff. But I recently got hooked on those Dan Brown novels, and both films “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels & Demons” were inferior to the books, using the old argument. And I can’t have that. I want the movie to be good, and if reading the source novel works AGAINST the movie, I’m done with this reading shit.
But, of course, you make the entire last paragraph seem silly…!
- Movie Guy Paul
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Movie Guys. The Movie Guys said: Which was better, the book or the movie? The Lazy Film Critic is back! And he says the whole argument is ridiculous: http://tiny.cc/671ek [...]