You shouldn't have to read the book in order to understand its movie adaptation.
Debate Rounds (3)
A common refrain for critically/commercially unsuccessful movies based on books among fans is "You needed to read the book to understand it." I am trying to convey that this is inadvertently acknowledging a poor screenplay. If a film needs its viewers to read a book to understand the plot, this is a bad movie. Pro will have to debate that it is okay for a film to require plot knowledge from its viewers.
To fully understand the full storyline of the movie you have to read the book version.
i do believe an example is needed:
The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a good example the movie does not follow but it is almost the same. when i watched Lord of the Rings i did not fully understand but the book does explain many things that are unclear in the movie.
Before we get to the literal debate, I do believe it is necessary to point out two (2) counts of the word "I" not being capitalized in my opponent's argument.
"when i watched Lord of the Rings i did not fully understand but the book does explain many things that are unclear in the movie."
This does nothing to disprove my statement -- you have only conceded either poor writing or a lack of understanding the film/story.
My argument stands that a film should suit as many people as possible -- this means fully explaining the plot in a concise and clear manner. My opponent used no proof to suggest I was incorrect in suggesting this -- all he used is an example of the exact thing I'm complaining about.
You could have fixed that by posting a legitimate argument. I can't debate because I haven't been given any real points to work off.
Benjy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this 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.