Books or Movies

Comparing a book to a movie is ridiculous! It's an "apples to oranges" comparison.... Come to think of it that saying doesn't make a lot sense. I can pretty easily compare apples and oranges in a broad sense. For example, oranges always have more vitamin C, potassium and protein, while apples have been known to lower cholesterol and stabilize blood sugar (not to mention they keep the doctor away).

 

No matter how many ironic compare and contrast papers, pictures and blogs we write, that obviously was not the point of the saying. I think a more clear proverb than "you can't compare apples to oranges" would be "you SHOULD'NT compare AN apple to AN orange." You can't take ONE apple and ONE orange and decide which is "better". If "better" means which one is the tastier fruit, than the orange will probably win if you prefer oranges and the apple will win if you prefer apples. The orange is inherently better at having the characteristics of an orange! And the apple is inherently better at being an apple. Enough talk about fruit, let's get back to books and movies.

 

When people compare a book to its movie, it's just like comparing an apple to an orange. The book will always be better at being a good book, and the movie will always be better at being a good movie. So why do people rate films based on novels by their "accuracy" to the novel, rather than their quality as a piece of cinema?

 

Books and movies are entirely different outlets of media, just as dissimilar as songs are to videogames or blog posts. I go to a book to enter a world through the writers view. Books are careful to express every emotion, thought, and scene, with clear diction so that the reader understands how the characters interact. In a movie, the director has to use action to show who their characters are in a much shorter time.

 

For a movie to feel like the book, it may have to put the characters into different situations, change their appearance to make them fit better on screen. Movies are billion dollar investments so each adaptation or diversion from the source material is deliberate and intentional.

 

The Lord of the Rings books AND movies (not including the recent Hobbit films) are pretty universally accepted, but the movies still made a LOT changes from the books. For example, in the books, Orcs had more human characteristics, and there is a chapter in which a few Orcs express their desire to win the war soon so they can return home to their families. Painting the Orcs in this light gave a new layer of meaning to the book as the reader had to pause and consider the warrior's dilemma. In the film, the human characteristics were all but completely cut from the disgusting orcs, so that the audience wouldn't be confused about whose side they should be on. 

 

My point is the books were better AND the movies were better because of some variations. If we keep punishing movies for diverging from the source we are only hindering writers and directors from improving films. Instead of forcing oranges to be as apple-like as possible, let's appreciate both for what they are.

 

 

Thanks for reading this blog post and commenting below! I know it isn't as good as the song "Dead Come Alive" by Tyler Joseph, but it's still better than the live action Super Mario Brothers movie. ;) Enjoy your media.

 

- The Noah





(Bonus: link to "Dead Come Alive" by Tyler Joseph, with a mind blowing animation - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj-nrLKo93NAhXBkh4KHRYeDwEQ3ywIHzAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-FHYI3kdK_g&usg=AFQjCNFTWB4nzQ66XveoloE15Y8LLLtaAw&sig2=c4qMaiX3BZMxy-rqblR5jQ)