Defending Movies, Kat Stephens, photographer.

I almost always watch the movie before I read the book. Now I know that this is a widely controversial opinion but stay with me!

As a self-proclaimed cinephile, I have a deep love and passion for the silver screen. Digital storytelling is simply magical because it allows the audience to immerse themselves into a world that mirrors how we experience the world through sight and sound.

I am not saying that all movie adaptations are better or even equivalent to the original. In fact, books are universally acknowledged to be better. Except in some cases like the “Princess Bride,” which is culturally renowned for its iconic humorous performance.

As a kid I loved to read but often struggled to follow the words and retain the plot, so I started using movies to help me visualize the story. Having this visual aid allowed me to have a basic knowledge of the characters and plot to add context to what was written. I didn’t need to stress about missing any crucial plot points.

I believe that movies can sometimes make the book even better. For example, “Forrest Gump,” based on the novel by Winston Groom, softens and humanizes Tom Hank’s character. Hank uses subtle movements to physically portray the innocence of the character which makes him one of the most heartwarming character in all of Hollywood.

When I watch a movie it usually leads to a hyperfixation. I fall in love with a character or storyline that will eventually lead down an extensive rabbit trail. Watching the film first allows me to turn to the book as if it is an extended director’s cut.

I am able to unlock a whole new side of the story with subplots or even internal thoughts that the screen time couldn’t fit inside the film. If we were to put every dialogue and excruciating detail into a film it would be 4-5 hours long.

For example, “The Hunger Games,” written  by Suzanne Collins, has one of the most respected and praised storylines for both a movie and novel. When I watched the films for the first time I was captivated. Then, I started reading the books to cure my hyperfixation, and it answered so many questions and depicted each character with great detail that I hadn’t noticed the first time watching it. It made me have an even bigger appreciation for the movie.

Because I watch the movies first, I will never be fighting the urge to point out every flaw, I can watch a film without constantly comparing plot points, character appearances and dialogue changes.

Experiencing a story free from bias allows me to have an open mind to see the story from a fresh perspective. You are able to unlock a genuine reaction that reflects personal connections.

In reality the book is always going to be better. If you love the movie, odds are you will also like the book. If you are already an adoring fan of the book before you watch the movie, you might have the perspective that it wasn’t made to your satisfaction.

Instead of looking through a lens of critique there is a chance to appreciate the adaptations with pure curiosity and to enjoy the two separate pieces of media.

Defending Books, Roxanne Gasana, deputy news editor.

I believe books will always be better than their movie adaptations. Reading the book before watching its movie version is much better because it allows you to use your imagination to experience a story the way it was meant to be absorbed. Movies are more convenient, but they come at a cost, and quite frankly, no movie has ever managed to convince me that it’s better than the book it came from.

The best part about reading is the fact that you get to exercise your brain through this process. Whenever you are reading a description of a certain character, you need to visualize how the characters look, how they speak and how they act. You actually create an imaginary world from the information provided to you. Unlike watching a movie where you are passive and solely receiving information, reading involves a lot more than just that; you interpret and visualize things in the process of reading.

When you watch the movie before reading the book, most of this imaginative process has been done for you. The actors have decided what the characters look like, the director has decided how the characters behave and how scenes play out, the set creates the scene for you and the soundtracks determine how you feel and when you feel it.

Once you finally get around to reading the book, it becomes hard not to see the actors instead of visualising the characters yourself. You can no longer completely visualize the story since someone else’s interpretation has taken root. Reading the book first gives you the freedom to create your own version of the story, and that is arguably the best part.

One of the two biggest problems with movie adaptations is the acting. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve watched an adaptation of a book I really loved, only to find myself disappointed with the casting and the acting. At times, the actors are just not the right fit for what the book described, and other times, their acting doesn’t capture the emotion the book portrayed. Since no actor can perfectly reproduce a reader’s interpretation of a character, this will always be a problem. Readers spend ages getting to know characters, so when the movie portrayal feels wrong, it’s difficult to accept.

The second problem with movie adaptations is what directors do with the plot. Important scenes are cut, and characters are sometimes reduced to a few lines or just removed from the movie. Meanwhile, unnecessary scenes are added to try and make the movie more interesting or to make it appeal to a wider audience than the book intended. This results in the movie feeling half-baked or rushed. I understand that movies are time-constrained, and making a 1000-page book into a two-hour film is difficult, but if a story needs so much adjusting and rearranging that the plot develops holes or the characters lose depth, is it truly worth it?

There are, of course, always exceptions. “Pride and Prejudice” will forever be my favorite film adaptation of a book. I couldn’t have cast the actors better because the actors did a fantastic job capturing the emotions and scenes portrayed in the book. They embodied the image I had of the characters.

As an avid Batman fan, certain Batman films and series have also shown that comic book adaptations can be superb when the people directing them understand the source material. These exceptions prove that adaptations can work, and they make the disappointing ones even harder to excuse.

As much as some adaptations are near perfection, I ultimately do not believe a film can ever fully live up to a book. There is nothing directors can do to find the perfect actors for the parts because a reader will always be able to imagine the best character in their mind. Actors can’t include every thought, feeling or detail that made you love the book. A movie can be excellent and beautifully filmed, but it will always be someone else’s interpretation of the story.

Who won? Comment below!