Adaptations And Their Opposition

I happened upon this article the other day, and it brought up a good point that I wanted to talk about.

It is common practice in these modern times to hear these words (and hear them often):

"Well that movie wasn't as good as the book..."

The question is: Why do we hear this so often?  What makes this so?

Well there's many avenues of thought on this particular topic, but I for one believe that movies definitely have the ability to be better than the book that it's based on.

 Is this blasphemy? The truth is: I don't really care anymore.

I've had it with these people who complain so often about how the movie adaptation of their precious book is so inferior to its source material. It really is a pet peeve of mine.

My question is: Why are you even bothering seeing the movie then?

The majority of these moviegoers are going to say the same thing over and over again, complaining about some minute detail that was apparently so important to them that it ruined their entire experience.

What I believe that they're missing is the core concept that the movie and the book that it's based on are two different mediums, and that they don't share the same universe in terms of their entertainment value.

If you were going to adapt, let's say War and Peace, would you adapt it verbatim, that is, every word in the entire novel?
Of course not.
That would be like a 26-hour movie.

Filmmakers and writers whose job it is to adapt a novel into a screenplay pick the themes and drama and action that they believe will best translate to the big screen and give the movie-going audience a film that can provide mass appeal. They do this instead of alienating the audience by only trying to appeal to fans of the book.

Part of this is process is based on the money-making aspect of it,
and the other part is, I think, common sense.

Not everything that is written in a novel would be appealing or necessary to an audience of moviegoers, so some things are omitted for reasons that could include: pacing, dramatic effect, length of the film, etc.

It really bothers me that even when an article like the one about how the "Harry Potter movies are better than the books" is still laced with quotes like:

"And to be even more honest, not one of our Potter experts -- not one -- preferred the movies to the books."

That's frustrating!

This is an article pointing out some of the reasons why the movies are superior to the books, and still it contains these undertones that actually these people are wrong for believing that, and that it's not really true.

I think that it's pretty ridiculous that even an article about why the movies are superior to the books feels like the author feels that the exact opposite is true.

And who knows, if you stepped back and realized the movie is not actually trying to avidly destroy the book you love, or its reputation, you might not only appreciate the film(s) more, you might even (DARE I SAY IT?) like it more than the book.

Dun dun DUN!

I know, impossible right?

Either that or just don't see the movie.

Either way, something's gotta give.

In the end of the rant...

I just think that people need to be a little more open-minded and they might appreciate the movie a little bit (or even a whole lot) more. Stop going into the movie adaptations expecting them to be awful and pointing out all its flaws, understand that this is appealing to a wider audience, and this is not an effort to destroy your love of the book.