BOOKS VS MOVIES
It’s the age old debate. Books are way better than films! I hear people say. Period! Cite me any movie that was better than the book!
Oh yeah? Well what about any James Bond movie? They are likely to be far more entertaining than a JB novel. Some movies do actually live up to their book expectations. I have even talked to fans of "The Lord of the Rings" books: one said the movie 'Battle of Helms Deep' was pretty much how he imagined it from the book. He even got up in the cinema and cheered!
Then again, its all down to personal taste and that’s because books are a far more intimate medium than a movie but both have their own merits. Books create a close link between a writer and a reader, and it can be frustrating when films don't live up to one's individual expectations of a novel. But to state a book is better than a movie is just dismissive of the thousands of people who risk their lives making these movies, who were inspired to make them because of books. Plus nobody ever died writing a novel, unless they slipped on spilt coffee and got impaled on a pencil.
But I digress, it is true, books tend to have more longevity than a movie might because they only require the imagination of the reader. Where as a movie has to provide all that but will date quickly due to changing fashions and technology. But then again some books tend to drag also, due to the 'Show Not Tell' ethos, which in my opinion should be used wisely, as too much of it can really slow the pace of a chapter to a grinding halt and thus bore the reader. "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is considerably laborious to read and its only twist fails miserably, when (in hindsight) you know that they are one and the same person.
Transposing a book to film also requires budgetary considerations. Thus they tend to have more action and entertainment and drop scenes from a book that might kill the pacing of the narrative. Coming back to the James Bond Books for a moment, they are totally different from the movies, due to the contractual agreements. But even so, fans of bond films such as The Spy Who Loved Me or Moon Raker, might find the novel versions somewhat of a disappointment. There are no megalomaniacs in the "The Spy Who Loved Me" novella for example, nor does it have a swish submarine car or any underwater citadel lairs, submarine eating tankers or indestructible henchmen with metal teeth. It doesn't even have James Bond in it! And is more of a 'Dear Diary' affair from a Bond Girls point of view.
Speaking of henchmen with metal teeth, the movie version of "Jaws" is another example, whereby its book counterpart is slow and laborious, with Chief Brody's wife having an affair (and no exploding shark!). "The Life of Pi"novel covers the back story in more detail than the movie does and gives a fantastic insight into Indian Culture but at the same time wonders too far from the basic plot of a kid stuck on a life-boat with a Bengal tiger. "Moby Dick" takes forever to get to the whale and the Frankenstein novel never had a spectacular resurrection scene either. The book of "Dracula" is essentially a series of correspondence letters between the characters.
On the other hand, I have yet to see an authentic movie version of "The War of the Worlds", bar the Jeff Wayne musical version but it was because of those films (and particularly the musical), that spurred me to read the HG Wells novel in the first place and now I cant help reading it, without hearing Richard Burtons voice.
If anything, films invariably wet the appetite of the reader and vice versa. Leaving the cinema, one might hear someone say The book was better. Another person will muddle thru the novel and think the opposite.
All in all, each has its own respected battle trenches, that the will keep folks engaged in debate, long after the original writers and filmmakers have passed on...
