Films vs Books

[JoeinAR 1,759]

that is one of the most illogical comparisons I've ever seen, its doesn't make a lick of sense. You're making false assumptions about quality. Who and what defines quality? I'll tell you that HP and the Half Blood Prince is a fine, quality novel, Drax will dispute me left and right.

Look at a book that is a great book and a great film like Silence of the Lambs, which is superior? And why is it superior?

I'm not sitting on the fence here, I'm simple saying that both can be the right answer and both can be wrong, its strictly based on individual books and films and individual preferences.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

HP represents, in my mind, the very top of written literature.

lol, d00d

[indy4 152]

that is one of the most illogical comparisons I've ever seen, its doesn't make a lick of sense. You're making false assumptions about quality. Who and what defines quality? I'll tell you that HP and the Half Blood Prince is a fine, quality novel, Drax will dispute me left and right.

False assumptions? I'm sorry, that's what you're doing. You're saying that you can compare adaptations, but 9 times out of 10, the book version and the film version will be at different levels of quality. You assume that their quality is the same, for how can we compare two genres if we aren't comparing equals amongst each genre. As for who and what defines quality--the individual reader/viewer does! My example makes sense, you've completely avoided the point of my argument.

Let me try to simplify things. If Person A writes a book that is a masterpiece, the greatest book every written (in your opinion), and Person B makes an adaptation of that book that sucks, it's absolutely awful in every aspect (in your opinion), then is it really fair to say that books are greater than films? No, because you're comparing the best of one medium with the worst of another. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the book with your favorite film every directed?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

All this is is comparing two methods to tell a story. Not that complicated. Which do you prefer? Films or books. Adaptations would fall into the film category, don't compare it to the quality of the book, just judge it as a film.

[indy4 152]

Yes, and I've tried to make my point as uncomplicated as possible.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Indy its just another popularity contest. you have made a poor case for yourself.

how do you judge the best book of 2008 against the best film of 2008, where is the basis for comparison?

you judge a book against its filmed version, thats the only fair way to represent both film and movie,

[indy4 152]

Indy its just another popularity contest. you have made a poor case for yourself.

Joey, for once could you just argue a point logically? Or better yet, concede that you've lost an argument? Instead of parrying my blows with one liners that say I'm stupid or whatever I'm arguing is stupid. It would be nice to have some intelligent debate with you.

Well, at least you've edited in something of substance.

how do you judge the best book of 2008 against the best film of 2008, where is the basis for comparison?

That makes for a good comparison. You're taking the best of each medium and comparing them, the same way you would pit the best of a tennis team against the best of a different tennis team. Of course, this wouldn't be a valid way to evaluate the poll, as 2008 could've been a good year for film and a bad year for literature, or vice versa, but you get the idea. As opposed to only comparing adaptations, which would give you the potential of comparing the best of one medium with the worst of another.

[Red 73]

All this is is comparing two methods to tell a story. Not that complicated. Which do you prefer? Films or books. Adaptations would fall into the film category, don't compare it to the quality of the book, just judge it as a film.

Is it what you prefer or is it what you actually think is better? There is a difference.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

This always has seemed like a futile argument. At the end of the day, the two mediums, while sharing roughly the same philosophy and end goal, are wildly different, and as such are incomparable. I know a lot of people seem to think books represent intellectualism, while films are dumb, but, y'know, it's different strokes for different folks. Books can do some things movies can't get near, yet movies can - especially in the visceral sense - smack you in the face in ways books can't, spoonfed or not.

I think the main thing they really have in common is, like with most media, there's a lot of poo books and a lot of poo films. Not every film is THE GODFATHER and not every book is The Dragonlance Chronicles VIIIXMMMC.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Indy its just another popularity contest. you have made a poor case for yourself.

Joey, for once could you just argue a point logically? Or better yet, concede that you've lost an argument? Instead of parrying my blows with one liners that say I'm stupid or whatever I'm arguing is stupid. It would be nice to have some intelligent debate with you.

really I wonder if its possible with you. You've not made one case for your argument

Well, at least you've edited in something of substance.

how do you judge the best book of 2008 against the best film of 2008, where is the basis for comparison?

That makes for a good comparison. You're taking the best of each medium and comparing them, the same way you would pit the best of a tennis team against the best of a different tennis team. Of course, this wouldn't be a valid way to evaluate the poll, as 2008 could've been a good year for film and a bad year for literature, or vice versa, but you get the idea. As opposed to only comparing adaptations, which would give you the potential of comparing the best of one medium with the worst of another.

again sorry this is such a bad argument, how do you even consider this. Sorry but it is very bad.

To compare the best book of 2009 against the best film of 2009 is nothing like the best of a tennis team against the best of another tennis team. Really where do you get this. In your comparison both are the same, they are both playing tennis.

But a book and a film are not two tennis teams, they are very different mediums, one is a tennis team, the other is a chess club, to different games, basically unrelated. Not a hell of alot of basis for comparison.

[indy4 152]

Indy its just another popularity contest. you have made a poor case for yourself.

Joey, for once could you just argue a point logically? Or better yet, concede that you've lost an argument? Instead of parrying my blows with one liners that say I'm stupid or whatever I'm arguing is stupid. It would be nice to have some intelligent debate with you.

really I wonder if its possible with you. You've not made one case for your argument

I have. You've just chosen to ignore most of them.

Well, at least you've edited in something of substance.

how do you judge the best book of 2008 against the best film of 2008, where is the basis for comparison?

That makes for a good comparison. You're taking the best of each medium and comparing them, the same way you would pit the best of a tennis team against the best of a different tennis team. Of course, this wouldn't be a valid way to evaluate the poll, as 2008 could've been a good year for film and a bad year for literature, or vice versa, but you get the idea. As opposed to only comparing adaptations, which would give you the potential of comparing the best of one medium with the worst of another.

again sorry this is such a bad argument, how do you even consider this. Sorry but it is very bad.

To compare the best book of 2009 against the best film of 2009 is nothing like the best of a tennis team against the best of another tennis team. Really where do you get this. In your comparison both are the same, they are both playing tennis.

But a book and a film are not two tennis teams, they are very different mediums, one is a tennis team, the other is a chess club, to different games, basically unrelated. Not a hell of alot of basis for comparison.

But in my comparison they are both at the same level of tennis playing in relation to their team. Adaptations can differ wildly in quality, you have yet to respond to this at all. I realize that it can be difficult to compare books and films if they are of different genres, but we do it all the time here. Hell, we had a "Monica's Theme" vs "Jaws Theme" poll a few weeks ago, and those are certainly from two different ends of the earth.

[Wojo 2,442]

Why only make the argument about books to movies a la adaptations? Why not make the argument about movies to books a la novelizations?

If a creator has in his mind a STORY, then he has the option to select which medium is best for that story...or which medium he prefers outright, as a matter of being employed by that profession. Maybe it's film, maybe it's book...or maybe it's a TV show, radio drama, play, opera, or comic book.

Some stories work well in only one format. These are stories that, for a number of reasons, never got translated into another format, or if they did, it was a flop. Some work well in two formats, some work in more than two (and some stories don't work in any format).

But the ability for a story to succeed in either film or novel better than the other or equally well is not a definable property of either genre. You can't say, oh it was a good book but a bad movie, books must be better. Or it was such a great movie, I don't think I want to read the book (source novel or novelization based on movie), it can't nearly be as good. It's a function of the people creating the story in the first place, or "adapting" the story to fit their medium. Because adaptations, novelizations, and other transitions from one format to another, what they do at all is distort the story to fit a new medium. And things get changed around, lost, or added. And no two adaptation crews do the same quality work from piece to piece.

Comparing the best book of 2008 and the best movie of 2008 is NOT the same as comparing Monica's Theme to Jaws Theme.

What is the best book of 2008? A book. I can cover my ears and enjoy a book.

What is the best movie of 2008? A movie. A movie is not a book. I cannot cover my eyes or ears and still enjoy the movie the same way.

What is Monica's Theme? A musical statement. But so is Jaws Theme. Oh dear.

If you wanna compare the best book of 2008 to something, try the best book of 2007. Or just say you're trying to determine the best artistic entertainment presentation of 2008, open the floodgates to all categories, and be done with it.

Comparing a tennis champ to a chess champ makes as much sense as, in the Olympics, dumping the women's 100 meter dash times in with the men's 400 meter dash times and trying to award medals.

[indy4 152]

Why only make the argument about books to movies a la adaptations? Why not make the argument about movies to books a la novelizations?

Okay, my points still apply.

But the ability for a story to succeed in either film or novel better than the other or equally well is not a definable property of either genre. You can't say, oh it was a good book but a bad movie, books must be better. Or it was such a great movie, I don't think I want to read the book (source novel or novelization based on movie), it can't nearly be as good. It's a function of the people creating the story in the first place, or "adapting" the story to fit their medium. Because adaptations, novelizations, and other transitions from one format to another, what they do at all is distort the story to fit a new medium. And things get changed around, lost, or added. And no two adaptation crews do the same quality work from piece to piece.

Yes, this is why we can't compare adaptations to their originals, because we don't know if they'll be as good as the other.

Comparing the best book of 2008 and the best movie of 2008 is NOT the same as comparing Monica's Theme to Jaws Theme.

What is the best book of 2008? A book. I can cover my ears and enjoy a book.

What is the best movie of 2008? A movie. A movie is not a book. I cannot cover my eyes or ears and still enjoy the movie the same way.

I'm talking about comparing books and films that are not related to each other in story (like adaptations). My point was that it isn't easy to do, but that doesn't mean they're "apples and oranges," or incomparable by any means. The Monica example was just a way of showing how we compare things that are quite different quite often on this board, so that doesn't invalidate the comparison between films and books that are not directly related to each other like an adaptation is.

[Wojo 2,442]

Yes, this is why we can't compare adaptations to their originals, because we don't know if they'll be as good as the other.

I didn't mean you couldn't compare them. I just meant that you had to realize that both are reflective of their creative teams, NOT on the medium on which they were made. Congo is a very good Michael Crichton book that was turned into a lousy movie, why? Because its adaptation team changed the scope of the story and the intent for going to the jungle. In dumbing it down, they lost something. That doesn't mean jungle movies are bad or Michael Crichton books make bad movies. Jurassic Park is a very good MC book that was made into a movie that is on near equal footing to the book, because even though its scope was also reimagined as the movie, it had a sense of wonder and innocence the book lacked.

I'm talking about comparing books and films that are not related to each other in story (like adaptations).

Ok...Herman Melville wrote "Moby Dick." Steven Spielberg directed "Jaws." Forget the fact that Jaws is an adaptation of a Peter Benchley novel, and that Moby Dick has been filmed to death.

Which is better? And why? And can you justify your answer without being biased toward your medium of choice?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

All this is is comparing two methods to tell a story. Not that complicated. Which do you prefer? Films or books. Adaptations would fall into the film category, don't compare it to the quality of the book, just judge it as a film.

Is it what you prefer or is it what you actually think is better? There is a difference.

I know there's a difference, that's why I only said one. This is asking which form of storytelling you prefer. There is no way to prove which is better, to each his own.

You guys are going into waaaay too much detail about this.

You have a story. That's it, one plain story. Say the person who thought of this story came up to you and explained it: the plot and the characters. You think to yourself, how would I like this story presented to me? As a film or as a novel? That's it. Don't talk about adaptations, quality, or comparisons. Don't talk or think about specific examples that would bias your choice. Just think about the story, and how you would like that story told to you. Then answer the question.

[indy4 152]

Yes, this is why we can't compare adaptations to their originals, because we don't know if they'll be as good as the other.

I didn't mean you couldn't compare them. I just meant that you had to realize that both are reflective of their creative teams, NOT on the medium on which they were made. Congo is a very good Michael Crichton book that was turned into a lousy movie, why? Because its adaptation team changed the scope of the story and the intent for going to the jungle. In dumbing it down, they lost something. That doesn't mean jungle movies are bad or Michael Crichton books make bad movies. Jurassic Park is a very good MC book that was made into a movie that is on near equal footing to the book, because even though its scope was also reimagined as the movie, it had a sense of wonder and innocence the book lacked.

Okay, but Joey is saying that the only way to compare the two mediums is to compare the adaptations. I'm saying that isn't so.

I'm talking about comparing books and films that are not related to each other in story (like adaptations).

Ok...Herman Melville wrote "Moby Dick." Steven Spielberg directed "Jaws." Forget the fact that Jaws is an adaptation of a Peter Benchley novel, and that Moby Dick has been filmed to death.

Which is better? And why? And can you justify your answer without being biased toward your medium of choice?

No...there will be bias, but that's what this poll is asking! Which medium would be your choice one?

[Jacob 0]

HP represents, in my mind, the very top of written literature.

lol, d00d

Ha!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,064]

HP represents, in my mind, the very top of written literature.

So I'm assuming you've read a whopping seven books in your lifetime?

[Henry B 49]

I am so with Joey on this one.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,064]

I'm sorry but I have yet to find a SINGLE movie that has captured my imagination like the MANY great books I've read. Reading books is an active endeavor, watching a movie is fairly passive, even if you're being very critical/analytical.

Films make up a spoonfed medium that has been around for about 100 years. The written word has been around for thousands of years.

[indy4 152]

I am so with Joey on this one.

Sarcasm (I certainly hope so)?

[Henry B 49]

Sarcasm it is not.

[indy4 152]

Even being aware that a book's story may not have "fit the medium of film" due to the incompetence of a director and not the actual story?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Even being aware that a book's story may not have "fit the medium of film" due to the incompetence of a director and not the actual story?

then thats the failure of a particular film, not all film adaptations.

Gone With the Wind, pulp Novel, great film, Godfather, pulp novel, Great film, Jaws, pulp novel, Great film.

One Flew Over the Cookoos Nest, great book, great film, Silence of the Lamb, great book, great film.

There are too many bad book, bad film combinations and many great book bad film combinations as well to be named.

I for one will not make this an either or case, I tend to read about 30 books a year, and I see about 30 movies or more a year(at the theatre). I don't see any need to choose between the two. In this case I have them both.

[indy4 152]

Even being aware that a book's story may not have "fit the medium of film" due to the incompetence of a director and not the actual story?

then thats the failure of a particular film, not all film adaptations.

Exactly my point! You can't use that to determine the poll, that's generalizing on the basis of a single example that could be the exception. We cannot assume that all adaptations will result in books and films being equally good/bad.

I for one will not make this an either or case, I tend to read about 30 books a year, and I see about 30 movies or more a year(at the theatre). I don't see any need to choose between the two. In this case I have them both.

Well, if that makes this poll invalid, then 95% of the polls on this site are invalid.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Even being aware that a book's story may not have "fit the medium of film" due to the incompetence of a director and not the actual story?

then thats the failure of a particular film, not all film adaptations.

Exactly my point! You can't use that to determine the poll, that's generalizing on the basis of a single example that could be the exception. We cannot assume that all adaptations will result in books and films being equally good/bad.

I for one will not make this an either or case, I tend to read about 30 books a year, and I see about 30 movies or more a year(at the theatre). I don't see any need to choose between the two. In this case I have them both.

Well, if that makes this poll invalid, then 95% of the polls on this site are invalid.

that is the basis for the comparison then indy, otherwise they are just two different mediums with no comparisons.

[indy4 152]

Even being aware that a book's story may not have "fit the medium of film" due to the incompetence of a director and not the actual story?

then thats the failure of a particular film, not all film adaptations.

Exactly my point! You can't use that to determine the poll, that's generalizing on the basis of a single example that could be the exception. We cannot assume that all adaptations will result in books and films being equally good/bad.

I for one will not make this an either or case, I tend to read about 30 books a year, and I see about 30 movies or more a year(at the theatre). I don't see any need to choose between the two. In this case I have them both.

Well, if that makes this poll invalid, then 95% of the polls on this site are invalid.

that is the basis for the comparison then indy, otherwise they are just two different mediums with no comparisons.

No, we should be comparing the best of one medium with the best of another. Otherwise, referring back to my tennis example, it's like playing the best tennis player against the worst just because they have the same physical build.

[Jacob 0]

... 95% of the polls on this site are invalid.

Caught on, have you?

[indy4 152]

[Koray Savas 2,095]

You have a story. That's it, one plain story. Say the person who thought of this story came up to you and explained it: the plot and the characters. You think to yourself, how would I like this story presented to me? As a film or as a novel? That's it. Don't talk about adaptations, quality, or comparisons. Don't talk or think about specific examples that would bias your choice. Just think about the story, and how you would like that story told to you. Then answer the question.