Reading as it has always been said is somewhat fulfilling that any form of art. The bibliophiles could formulate a creed and say; reading is magical, no antidote can suppress the charm that is in books. Have you ever read a book and watch its equivalent in a movie and felt that the movie wasn’t as artistic as the book? There are some movies whose ideas are from books. One recent example is the movie that was hyped from December 21st in the year 2018; Bird Box. Its film and the novel written by Josh Malerman in the year 2014 has some distinctions in it which tell you why a book is way better than a movie.
The following three books are better read than watched as film production.
Any classical book-lover must have read Tolkien’s book. It is entirely different from the movie in the following ways;
- When Tolkien was writing the book, he had wished for it to be a children’s book, but in the film, there is a sense of maturity in it since the movie looks more horrific than adventurous.
- In the book, Tolkien does not entirely mention Lady Galadriel and Saruman the White that she traveled to Rivendell for the White Council meeting. In the film though, she is introduced at the meeting as part of the members of the white council
- The character, Tauriel, that is in the movie does not exist in the book
- There is no mention of Legolas who was Elvenking Thranduli’s son in the book. In the film, he is Tauriel’s admirer and was seen hating dwarves and a skilled warrior who was killing off the arcs
Jonathan Swift wrote this book before it was adapted into a movie. The book is said to have been written in the 18th century, but the setting in the movie shows a contemporary kind of setting. The movie spends quite some time just trying to create a clearer picture of the Gulliver which was not the case in the book. In the book, swift describe most of the things in great detail, and that is left out in the movie.
Jonathan Swift is not known to be a satirical writer, and it is evident in the book. In the movie, however, that has not been brought out well as required. The book had a kind of universal appeal so that anyone could read it. The film though reaches the global audience but in an awkward way
The film limited itself to the first parts of the book so it leaves out some great scenes that are in the book that would have excited the viewers
This is most people’s favorite book as kids. However, its movie adaptation is said to have flopped a great deal in terms of content delivery as in, in the book.
The story is quite descriptive; even the slightest occurrence is told in a significant way. The movie introduces characters that were not in the book therefore not bringing out Ella’s character the way it was brought out in the book. The fact that the film is taking a fairy tale genre makes it very clichéd therefore boring to watch because such content has been in the film industry for a long time
Here are some of the reasons why the differences mentioned above are in favor of the books, not the movie adaptations
- Books give you the freedom to get a firsthand experience of the story at your own pace; a movie is shortened to fit a specific timeline
- Books are more imaginative than the film which is more descriptive
- The book’s intention remains that of the author so you will get the story as the author wished it to have been
- In a book, you will know the character better and interact with them more intimately as compared to a film
- In a book, you can understand what the characters are thinking because the writer puts down everything
This though should not dismiss the fact that some movie adaptations are even more creative than the book. They give you a clearer picture of the character is made of. Movies that bring out a lousy taste of the book have producers and directors who are not creative enough to bring out characters the way they should. In some instances, it could be the wrong choice of characters that make the movie not to be as exciting as the book.