So, for all of my posts this week, I wanted to try something a bit different. My wife and I were talking the other day and she told me that I should argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with. All five posts this week will be topics given to me that I have expressed a dislike for to, either my wife or everyone who reads my blog, but I have to give the opposite view. I have to explain why these things are actually true, or that they at least have some good qualities. This is going to be a weird, but also very fun, and maybe even a bit difficult, but I'm up to the task.
My fifth, and final, topic sentence of the week from my wife, "books are always better than their TV/movie adaptation. This sounds like it should be an easy one, but I'm the type of person that will watch a show, or see the movie first, before I read the book. Case and point, I saw the movie "Friday Night Lights", then read the book, then watched the TV show. I will say, the book was the best, but I enjoyed the movie a hell of a lot more than the show, but the show was great. An example that is contrary to my wife's belief, I adore both "One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest" and "A Clockwork Orange", but I find the books almost unreadable. I also loved what Spike Jonze did with "Where the Wild Things Are". I thought that book would be nearly impossible to bring to the big screen, but he achieved that very task. But, I do see why my wife, and a lot of other people, feel that books are better than their adaptations.
Here goes with my answer to why books are better.
First off, movies and TV shows have a time limit, unless you are Richard Linklater or Judd Apatow, and you make your movies a million hours long. The directors and writers usually get 2, sometimes 2 and a half hours to tell a story. When the writer writes their book, they can use as many pages as they want. They can make their book 100 to 1,000 pages, if they choose. My first example is "The Hobbit". I believe that there is one book and three movies. The book is about 200 to 250 pages long, but it is filled with some of the best imagery in writing. That book took my mind to a world that I did not think was possible. I never thought of trolls, giants, any of the stuff in "The Hobbit", but after reading it, I had this whole world dreamed up in my head. Then, Peter Jackson, who I think is a very capable director, made three of the most boring, over long movies ever when he adapted "The Hobbit". He made three movies, each well over 2 hours, and that just did not have to happen. He could have done one 3 hour long movie that encompassed the entire book, but he chose to divide the short story into three 2 plus hour movies and they were not very good, in my opinion. The world I dreamed in my head was not Peter Jackson's vision for the movie. And that is okay, everyone has different ideas. But, why did each movie have to be so damn long? That was unnecessary. J R R Tolkien created a much better world in one short book. Peter Jackson got a little too big for his britches after the "Lord of the Rings" success and made the "Hobbit" movies entirely too long. This is one case where I completely agree that the book is so much better than the movie.
Now, my second example is going to make me sound pretentious, but this topic is pretentious, and where else can I be pretentious than on the internet, but every Bret Easton Ellis book is so, so much better than their movie adaptation. For those that don't know, Ellis wrote, among things, "American Psycho", "The Rules of Attraction" and "Less Than Zero". Let's first look at "American Psycho". That book is about as disturbing and violent as it gets. The imagery in that book is frighteningly real. I could not read that book before bed for fear of having nightmares. The description of the heinous acts still haunts me, and I haven't read that book in well over a year. But, the movie left a lot to be desired. I get that they couldn't make the movie nearly as brutal as the book, but therein lies the problem with adapting a book. The book has more time and can paint a realistic picture. Movies, 2 hours and out. While the book "American Psycho" terrified me, the movie was kind of blah. Then, I read "Less Than Zero". That book is a brutal look into the life of wealthy Californian kids that suffer with real problems, like drug addiction, divorce and having too much wealth way too young. The way Ellis described this stuff in the book made it seem real to me. I could picture these kids. Hell, I knew some of these kids. But, the movie, save for Robert Downey Jr, almost played like an after school special. The movie didn't take the chances that the book did. But, I'm sure that the agents of the young actors didn't want their clients to do some of the stuff in the book because it could have tarnished their image. That's a bummer because that movie could have been great. And, "The Rules of Attraction" book was so much better than the garbage movie they made. The book focused, again, on rich, white college students with problems. But, the book had a little humor to it that made it very enjoyable. I would read some stuff and laugh out loud, but then I'd be brought back down immediately by something heart breaking. The movie, on the other hand, was trash. The director and casting agents picked young "stars" like James Van Der Beek and Jessica Biel, and tried to make them look angsty and tough. Well, no matter how much fake cocaine Jessica Biel does, or how many fights Van Der Beek got in, I couldn't help but laugh, and not in a good way, at the performances in the movie. It was terrible. Ellis himself proved to be a bad movie writer himself when he made that god awful movie with Lindsay Lohan and a porn star, but he is a novelist, not a movie writer.
One final example I have is "James and the Giant Peach". I loved this book as a kid. This was one of the first chapter books I read in elementary school. Roald Dahl was, and still is, a genius in my opinion. The book is so imaginative and so beautifully written. Again, the imagery in my mind is wonderous. But, the movie just couldn't compare. They even tried with an animated movie, but it was not the same. This time, at least, the movie was halfway decent, but it was nowhere near as cool as the book.
I'm sure there are thousands of other examples, but these are the ones that came to my mind immediately. Tell me and my wife about some other ones in the comment section. But, I do have to agree, once again, with my wife. Books are usually much, much better than their adaptations.
Ty with a little help from his wife
Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He is already upset the movie version of his life will leave out the part where he spun the world backwards and saved Lois Lane. Movies need to run on time. You should follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.
