Would You Rather Read the Book or Watch the Movie Adaptation?

No, it’s not your imagination. There are numerous adaptations of books being turned into films or mini-series lately, more than other years. From Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Gamus premiering on Apple TV+ to true crime Killers of the Flower Moon by David Grann currently being shown in theaters,  published works are being retold for the screen. In fact, many stories we see on the big screen or via streaming services are based on top-selling books.

For a great list of books turned into films, check out this story on Stylist.

But is one storytelling experience better than the other? Is it better to read the book first or to view the film adaptation? It’s a decades-long debate with no real answer. It’s more a matter of personal preference.

Hollywood often looks to newer book releases for inspiration for films. Some of the most popular films can be traced back to its written version. One that comes to mind is Field of Dreams, based on the novel Shoeless Joe by W. P. Kinsella. Though lesser known than the film, the book is just as good, though it contains a couple of characters and a subplot that doesn’t appear on screen.

Many readers swear that books are better than the film version. I’ve read many books that were turned into films that I found lacking in substance. The books were still better. Bee Season was a decent book, but the film adaptation wasn’t nearly as compelling. While The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri was made into a movie, the literary novel that it was based on provided more depth.

The reverse can also be true, that film adaptations bring the written story to life and make it better, more believable. Field of Dreams is one example of that. And though I never read the original story of The Graduate by Charles Webb, it went on to become one of the best films of all time.

There are several reasons for enjoying books over the movie or mini-series:

• Books allow the imagination to run free and paint pictures in our minds.
• Books provide more plot details, subplots and secondary characters
• Books provide more backstory than films might be able to do.
• Books allow readers to experience the story at their own pace; there are no time constraints as there might be in films.
• Books allow readers to think more deeply about what they’ve read

Conversely, films offer a few advantages of their own:

• Films are more visually appealing; you see the action as it happens and it leaves nothing to the imagination.
• Films provide a more streamlined experience because they focus on the major events and characters of the story, while subplots and secondary characters are often cut.
• Viewing films can be enjoyed alone or with others. It can be a shared experience.
• It takes less time to experience the story—two to three hours compared to several days or weeks for a novel.

There are other factors that contribute to the choice of reading the book versus watching the movie. Many people are more visual by nature, so they prefer watching films. Or perhaps they’re simply not book readers.

Can reading ruin your experience of the film? That depends on who you ask. I still enjoyed watching the Harry Potter films—all eight of them—and I will watch them over and over. The books are just as good if not more so because of the added layers of plot.

Some readers claim that seeing the film first can enhance their reading experience. The film gives them a cursory idea of the story, while the book fills in more of the details and provides more backstory. On the other hand, some film adaptations are so far removed from the original that it can ruin the original meaning.

It all comes down to personal preference. I myself prefer the book reading experience. I feel I get more out of the story that way. But really, there is no right or wrong way. Whether you read the book or watch the movie or both, you’re still enjoying the power of story no matter what form is takes.