Showerthought: Why do movies always leave out the best bits from the story?

I get that films have time limits, but it feels like they chop out what made the story special. What do you think, should they stick to the source or go their own way?

3 comments

3 Comments

kai_brown231mo ago

Turning books into films often cuts the good stuff cause movies need to show action. Like, 'Harry Potter' skipping Peeves was a bad move. Films go for big scenes over quiet character bits. They leave out chats that make friendships real. TV shows like 'The Crown' keep more of that depth with extra time. Maybe film makers should just write new stories if they can't fit the book right.

bethj441mo ago

Hmm, I mean maybe it's not just about time limits. Some book moments are pure reading magic, like long inner thoughts or funny footnotes that flop on screen. Like in 'The Hitchhiker's Guide,' the narrator's jokes work in text but feel odd in a movie. Films have to turn complex feelings into a quick shot or a line, which can miss the point. Maybe what we call the 'best bits' are just stuff that only works in our heads.

robert_burns19d ago

Remember reading an interview where a screenwriter said books and films speak different languages. A book can spend a page on a feeling, but a film has to show it in a face or a setup. They cut the 'best bits' because those bits are often written words, not pictures. Like in 'The Shining,' the book has all this backstory in the hotel's past that builds dread, but the film just shows the empty halls and that scary music. It's not worse, it's just translating the fear into something you see and hear instead of read.