Today, in the 21st century, the main way we as people consume our entertainment has vastly changed from the way it was in years prior. One of the more major examples of this has been the slow switch from books to movies. As time progresses, more and more books seem to have found their way to the big screen, and while this different interpretation of stories can be positive in ways, it also leads to a vast majority of consumers skipping past the source material to sit and watch the story in a method that is arguably more “consumable”. This causes many, including myself, to ask the question, “Is this the right approach?” What is truly a better experience, books or their film counterparts?
The first story we will be looking at is Ready Player One. The book came out in 2011 to critical acclaim, and the movie debuted in 2018 to claims of mediocrity. This one is a unique example of many calling it a good movie but a far departure from the book. An example of this is from the Pottsgrove High School student Joshua Migdal who says, “Ready Player One was a great book but the movie doesn’t really follow the story as accurately as it could’ve”. This seems to be a common consensus among the fandom of this story, one which I agree with as well. That being said, the movie wasn’t bad; it was just different, but that difference made the two very different experiences, which left readers of the book disappointed that the movie didn’t have the same story they fell in love with.
Another more popular example is the Harry Potter franchise, where both the movies and books are heavily praised. As a big fan of this franchise myself I can say that both the books and movies are very good. However, a lot of details and even core story beats are changed between the two iterations, which leads to many saying that the books are a more detailed and “complete” experience.
From these two examples, a trend starts to develop that is the main consensus that many come to upon us discussing this topic. Books tend to be very long and very detailed and their movie counterparts tend to lose a lot of that detail in an attempt to shorten that length. This isn’t inherently bad, but it leads to a lot of book fans being disappointed, which directly ties into my verdict.
Verdict: A book is the original and more “pure” form of the story that an author spent years crafting; a film adaptation is that story, morphed to try to appeal to a different audience. With that in mind, story-wise, I think the book version will almost always be the better form to start. But with that said, if you really like a concept but don’t think you have time to commit to a long book, a movie adaptation wouldn’t be a bad alternative.
