It seems every time Hollywood tries to retell the stories of a popular book franchise I have the same conversation over and over. I've come to hate the phrase "the book was so much better", like books and movies are something that can be compared. In my mind that's like complaining that blueberry cheesecake doesn't taste like country fried steak. Why should it? Both serve different purposes and have different things to offer. The reason I prefer movies isn't because of my short attention span (although it may play a small part). People that get defensive about it are simply looking for a reason to argue so to humor them here's a blog to punch a couple holes in their silly crusade:
With books the advantage is length not amount of content. The phrase 'a picture is worth a thousand words' holds true if you have the right camera man. Both can end up being a carefully composed masterpiece but one certainly requires a lot more effort.
-A book doesn't require a massive team of costume designers, makeup artists and architects to fabricate a world we can see with our eyes.
-A book doesn't dedicate months to creating special and visual effects to mystify its spectators.
-A book doesn't have entertainers we come to know and love who's job it is to deliver emotional performances that bring the story to life.
-A book isn't accentuated with a gripping soundtrack that can lift us up and empower us or tear our hearts out and emotionally compromise us.
-A book isn't as artistic in creating the perfect lighting, position and pacing to make things surreal but believable.
-A book is built to offer us a personal experience we enjoy privately while a movie is meant to be experienced socially. We can share the discovery of the plot with our friends and peers in the moment.
Movies have so much to offer and its a world that will always intrigue me. To me anybody who thinks that a book is better than a movie has only ever watched Nicolas Cage films, and I'll never understand why anyone would ever do that to themselves.
