The book is generally better than the movie
Debate Rounds (4)
Good luck, bro!
However, I think I'll be needing it more.
I do not dislike movies, and there are movies that take exception to this idea, however, I feel the majority of books are better story tellers than movies.
Writing a book and making a movie are definitely a different art form from each other.Each of them are bound to their own limitations, and have their own set standards to meet at the very least.
Movies, in general, lasts for 1 to 3 hours.This is one of the limitations the art form has to work around on. There"s also the movie budget and so on so forth.
Books can stick to as many words as they see fit. Money has no power over the quality of the story either. They are, however, limited to the imagination due to their lack/absence of visuals and audio.
Now knowing these limitations that both art forms have to work on, it is unfair to state the superiority of their story telling between each other with the reasons stated by my adversary.
I"m not stating that movies are generally better than their book counter part. What I am saying is that the book cannot be better than its movie counter part.
Moving on to my adversary"s claims, Pro stated that, "books for starters are able to tell you what is going on inside the heads of the characters." Although this is more often the case, this does not mean to say that movies are incapable of portraying the thought pattern or emotion of a character. Thought patterns and emotion can be simply announced by a narrator in a movie (e.g. A Series of Misfortunate Events). They can also be made through cinematography such as camera angles, transitions, audio, etc.
Second, Pro stated the advantage of books due to their ability to make better use of the imagination, which he states to be limitless in boundaries. I completely agree with this statement. It is simply undeniable. Of course, this shouldn"t be a basis to claim that a book is better than a movie, because, again, both are different art forms that are set in their own limitations. No one can say that because the movie had audio and the book did not, it was better than the book. The lack of the other cannot be used against it, and the possession of the other cannot be used to move it onto a pedestal.
Third, Pro stated the possibility of the movie to go off-canon. Even though Con implied that going off-canon is something to be frowned upon, I can say that he is being biased. If story telling is the matter here, movies and books have the tendency to be a different story from each other due to the addition or the removal of details. Again going back to my very first point, they are different art forms. If movie makers think that modifying an element is necessary for the enjoyment of the audience, then so be it. Again, let us remember that there"s not only one man behind all of these. We have to consider the editors, and those who gave an educated opinion over the modifications that they made.
Fourth, we can't solely base the quality of being better than the other on accuracy of details. Again,both are a different art form that has their own target audience and limitations.
All of these arguments are coming from someone who has a tough time reading, too. Reading is something I enjoy but have a difficulty doing. I'm not retarded, in fact, most of my family and many of my friends come to me for historical and scientific answers including physics, chemistry, and biology.
Overall, reading has a better way of conveying a story from teller to audience versus a movie. Movies are enjoyable, but are certainly not as effective at conveying a story compared to the story telling abilities of a book. Of course, I will admit, how a book is written and how a movie is made can affect which is better at conveying a story.
However, I must disagree that the both art forms share the responsibility to tell THE story; rather, I believe that both art forms share the responsibility to tell A story.
Ladies and gentlemen, a movie does not promise to tell the same story as a book. A movie, however, promises to offer something new. This may be thought provoking, entertaining, saddening, disgusting, or any adjectives for that matter. They may now base the movie to an existing story for that purpose. Please note the word, base - a mere foundation or lowest level thereof.
Let"s face the reality here, it doesn"t come to us to much of a surprise if the movie leaves out minor or major details from the book it was based on, nor does it surprise us that a movie will go off-canon. We have seen most, if not all, movies that were based from books to show this tendency.
This then begs me to ask this question:
Do we, the audience, honestly choose to watch a movie to see the same exact story as we may have read in the book?
Some and maybe most will argue yes, but I say otherwise.
We go to the movie to watch a different story. A story as it was chosen to be interpreted. If you tell two persons to read the same book, they would have different interpretations. Much is the same if you picked out three, four, ten, a thousand, or more. No story is the same for any person.
A movie and a book tell similar stories, but not exactly the same. They share similar settings, but not exactly the same. They share similar characters, again, but not exactly the same.
Almost nothing between them is exactly the same.
Now looking back to Pro's argument, I can say that a book tells a story very well, but they don"t share the same story as the movie.Therefor, we can"t say that one told it better than the other.
Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
To emphasise my main point, I state that the flagship of my argument is that the book and the movie are simply incomparable. A book cannot be "generally better" nor be worse than the movie, for the reason that they don't share the same art form, limitations, and more importantly the same standards.
Supporting this, I say that a book and a movie does not have the responsibility to tell the same story, but have the responsibility to tell a story.
I thank my opponent for this challenging debate. I hope he didn't forfeit the last round however.
If the voters think that it is unfair that I used my last round while my opponent did not, then please feel free to dismiss my words on Round 4.
I know that my opinion is an unpopular one, but I hope the voters will let go of their own bias. I have taken up two weeks with my professor's discussion on this, so I do believe that I know what I am talking about.
Again, thank you to everyone!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. Debaters should divide arguments into sections, and should not write what is not relevant to the debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.