BTT: Books vs Movies

From Booking Through Thursday:

Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what's the difference between a book and a movie?

Yes. There are some things that work better on screen and some things that work better in writing. Movies are much better at making an emotional effect on me. Books rarely touch me at an emotional level, while movies can easily make me scared, sad or happy. Movies can make me cry, but books never do (though that may also be a function of the books I read).

What works better in writing is detail. I love books that involve intellectual entertainment and education. Neal Stephenson's large works are that kind of books, full of all sorts of information that has relatively little to do with the plot, really - and in a movie, they would be the first thing to go. In books, I can enjoy all that detail. Tristram Shandy is another example of something that just wouldn't work on screen: I just love the way Sterne wanders from one topic to the other (Tristram Shandy - A Cock and Bull Story is a movie version of the book, but it takes a different approach).

I do prefer books, but both have good sides and some things just work better in a movie. I'm tempted to say Lord of the Rings works better as a movie, as the movie version has so much more emotion to it - the attack of the Rohan cavalry always brings tears to my eyes, which the book never did... So, I'd say whatever works for the story is good!