Why are books often darker than their adaption counterparts?

[DunkeyKong]

Nobody has the patience to read a book. To reach a widespread audience, movies cater to the lowest common denominator. Books are more personal. A connoisseur appreciates literature and cinema film is only an imitation of art.

Now, if it's like those moving from panels to panels, or basically just a slideshow then yes. But most film, and when I said MOST, I really mean most of them (even the bad ones) are not just an imitation

They are showing what it'd be like visually but also with a…let's say, surreal effects. It's not just an imitation, it's rather a reimagining or a remake I might say. Cinematography isn't easy, especially with different directors. So yeah it's definitely not just an imitation

 

[ATenderLad]

Nobody has the patience to read a book. To reach a widespread audience, movies cater to the lowest common denominator. Books are more personal. A connoisseur appreciates literature and cinema film is only an imitation of art.

I mean you had me until the end there; some of my opinions are old-fashioned, but I think that last one is sipping tea at a palace in the Kingdom of Prussia. Have you not seen Step Up 2: The Streets? Pure art.

 

[water_kooler]

Film is definitely an art.

Nobody rolls their eyes at Les Misérables

Not trying to belittle movies. Sometimes the movie is better than the book. A book takes several days to finish sometimes. Lots of good film adaptations to books.
For example:
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
American Psycho

I argue that commercial interest controls a movie. A movie has a fixed interpretation and less imagination.

 

[miguk]

Not trying to belittle movies. Sometimes the movie is better than the book. A book takes several days to finish sometimes. Lots of good film adaptations to books.
For example:
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
American Psycho

I argue that commercial interest controls a movie. A movie has a fixed interpretation and less imagination.

Interpretation and imagination are not fixed. People argue over what films mean all the time, as well as what was hinted at by certain parts of the film.

And yes, some movies are definitely better than the book:

• Jaws: Spielberg actually hated the book to the point of binning it, but felt the shark parts could make a good film.
• Fast Times at Ridgemont High: Everyone forgot the book after the film's release, partially because Spicoli was a more likeable character on film, and also because the book didn't have Phoebe Cates.
• Who Framed Roger Rabbit: Another book forgotten because the film was better. The author retconned the film as the canonical first story in the sequel because he knew it was better.
• American Psycho: This is debatable, but many people prefer it because the violence is off camera instead of in your face. It does help to focus on the satirical element.
• Jurassic Park: My opinion, but Crichton is a hack writer. Spielberg is good at making mid works look good.
• It Part 1: Probably also debatable, but the books 50s setting isn't as relatable as the 80s setting. Also, changing the end of the kids' story was a good thing (and they could have filmed that anyways), since it was probably the worst thing King wrote on a coke binge.

 

[Ikagura]

Nobody has the patience to read a book. To reach a widespread audience, movies cater to the lowest common denominator. Books are more personal.

I agree about this, books require more time than just several hours of watching.

A connoisseur appreciates literature and cinema film is only an imitation of art.

I disagree about that though.

Because telling that an art form is less valid than another kinda sounds a bit elitist, like saying something akin to "Rock 'n Roll isn't real music unlike Orchestral".

Many movies are original stories as well (with actual authors who wrote them).

As much as the movie adaptations of DADoES and The Shining were delving from their originals Scott and Kubrick did a masterful work for them

 

[IDMTINP]

Not trying to belittle movies. Sometimes the movie is better than the book. A book takes several days to finish sometimes. Lots of good film adaptations to books.
For example:
One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest
American Psycho

I argue that commercial interest controls a movie. A movie has a fixed interpretation and less imagination.

I think it's worth noting that translation from one medium to another will always change the original vision.

@Ikagura's original question may be a little limited. Books aren't just darker than their cinematic counterparts, but every aspect is going to be slower and denser. That's the nature of the medium. But a movie holds its own unique advantages if the story is intended for a film.

I think you're seeing weakness in film as a medium because mainstream movies have been artistically handicapped as the industry became solely about money. There are many examples of movies being just as heavy for the needs of the intellect as any book.

Take 2001: A Space Odyssey - that is a successfully dark, dark film that stands on its own from the book (wasn't really based on a book but the story was written simultaneously for both mediums). There's no way the book could offer the trip that the movie did, or intrigue astute viewers with the visual symbolism accomplished through skilled editing. Despite engaging the senses, there's so much thought provoking material in the film that people continue discussing its meaning to this day.

Or how would you translate this visual experience (I don't mean the show, I mean the video - watch it in its entirety and you'll know what I mean) into a book without losing the emotional impact it has in the audio/visual medium? I have read books, I have watched films. Neither medium is inherently better or worse or less intellectually challenging than the other.