Books vs. Movies

The adaptation of books has always been a part of movie making. As far back as 1903, when the first adaptation of Alice in Wonderland was made, filmmakers have looked to the literary realm for inspiration. It makes sense. You take a story people are already familiar with and present it to them in a new medium, chances are they'll want to see it.

The relationship between books and film continues to this day, and in fact is probably stronger than ever. Think about some of the biggest film franchises of the past decade: The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, as well as the superhero movies based on comic book characters such as Batman and Spider-man. Even this year, the first two big tentpole films of the summer are John Carter, based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' books, and The Hunger Games.

It's a trend that's never going to stop so long as it continues to be profitable. Something that invariably comes with film adaptations is a comparison to the source material, and I've been thinking about it a lot lately.

There are basically three ways a film can be viewed: better than the book, worse than the book, or as good as. Of course it's all subjective, but most films are viewed in general according to these terms. In my own experience, I find that the source I view first, be it the book or the film, tends to be my preferred version, with a few exceptions. Below are some examples.

The book was better than the film:

This is probably the most common, especially when I've read the books first. There's just something special about discovering a character on your own, about taking the author's words and creating the look and feel of a world without any other influence. The best example I can think of is Harry Potter. While the films were good, and they got better as the series progressed, they simply couldn't compete with the books. This has much to do with the time constraints placed on a movie and its inability to include all the minutia of the book. But it also has to do with JK Rowling's incredible writing ability.

What bothers me most about the Harry Potter films isn't what they took out of the movie, it's what they added to it. (The Burrow burning scene in Half-Blood Prince comes to mind.) For some reason this really bugs me in Harry Potter, but not as much in other stories. The world of Harry Potter was and is one of my favorite literary places to visit, and while I can say they did an excellent job with the cast for the movies, it's a little sad to me that future readers will likely be picturing Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson as they read, instead of creating the characters' likenesses in their own minds.

The film was better than the book:

This usually occurs when I've watched the movie first. The first two examples that come to mind are Stardust and How To Train Your Dragon. In the case of Stardust, the filmic world had a more enchanting feel to it, and Tristan's journey seemed much more complete. While I love Neil Gaiman, the book to me was underdeveloped, and the ending of the movie was far better and more romantic.

Now I want to watch this again.

The same applies to How To Train Your Dragon. The movie bears little resemblance to the book, and I think it's so much better for that. I spoke with a friend at DreamWorks, and he said the original take on the film was much closer to the book, but they eventually moved away from it, which is a move I can't applaud them enough for. By enhancing characters as well as the scope of the story, the filmmakers improved on the source material and created two excellent, memorable films.

The film and book are equally good.

Comic books are interesting, because often there isn't a definitive take on a character, both in film or the comics. Adam West's Batman, Michael Keaton's Batman, and Christian Bale's Batman are vastly different, yet still remain true to the source material in their own way, and I think their respective movies are awesome. (We don't talk about Val Kilmer or George Clooney. We just don't)

Oh the pain.

I first watched Miyazaki's amazing animated version of Howl's Moving Castle, and it's one of my favorite films of his. I later read the book, and though it has a different feel, it's also an excellent story. I feel as though the best book version of the story was told in the book, and the best film version of the story was told in the film. Telling the stories in the other medium may not have worked as well.

The best example I can think of is one of my all-time favorite stories, both in book version and film, and that is The Lord of the Rings. I read The Hobbit way back in junior high, but didn't get around to reading LOTR until right before the first film came out. Though the book is long and there may be a song or two too many in it, I love Tolkien's classic story. So much so that I was worried about the upcoming films. But my worrying was wasted, as Peter Jackson and company delivered one of the greatest film franchises in history.

The films, especially the extended editions, did what most good adaptations do best. They take the key parts of the story and they present them in a way that is both new and true to the source material. At times, this means leaving beloved parts behind. But when done well, as in this case, the movies are so good you don't miss those parts for long.

And I honestly get chills watching this. Can. Not. Wait.

So what do you think? What are your favorite or least favorite book to film conversions? How much does watching or reading the story first influence your experience in the other medium? Feel free to debate me about Harry Potter, but I'm right about George Clooney as Batman. I promise.