Something came up recently where friends of mine had went to go see Where the wild things are. And came back with a fairly negative review. And normally if I had seen the movie I’m apt to try and shed some open-minded light on the subject. However, I haven’t seen Where the wild things are nor have I any real desire to, but that still didn’t stop me from trying to take the open minded stance in the conversation.

Their complaint is that it left them feeling more depressed after having seen the movie. When the book felt like a more light-hearted tale that didn’t make them feel that way. And one of my friends even points out, that, Where the wild things are is only like a 10-page book so Spike Jonze didn’t have much to work with in terms of screenplay. So he kind of had to make up and insert things to make it a feature length movie.

Which really got me thinking, because, it reminds me of an argument that comes up a lot in my field. What happens when making images, video, animation, etc larger than what it was originally created at. Allow me to show you:

Notice that the image on the right looks pretty crappy and distorted. See, the image on the right is the result of the computer ‘guessing’ (based on mathematical algorithms) what the image is supposed to look like once it’s become larger. Because you can’t just make something larger (or smaller for that matter) without taking away or replacing it with something. What we’re looking at is “the square cube law.”

The square-cube law is a biomechanical principle that explains why we don’t have man-sized insects, elephant-sized birds, and why you can’t make jpg images larger without it pixelating; But could also explain why you liked the book better than the movie as well.

As an object increases in size, its volume and mass increase as well. The area of bodily organs such as bones, muscles, or breathing tubes only increase in size not mass.

Which means, if you double the size of an animal, its mass increases by a factor 8, but the strength of its bones and muscles only increases by a factor of 4. Increase the size far enough, and the animal will no longer be strong enough to support its own weight. It’ll also have trouble breathing and pumping enough blood around, because the tubes and blood vessels don’t increase in size fast enough to handle the extra body weight either.

So let’s use this principal with something less tangible, such as movies and screenplays…

A lot of movies are based off of books, comics, short stories, novels, etc. Producers will hire writers to write a screenplays based on the book or sometimes directly word for word from the book. All depending on what the producers want for the final product.

So if we take Where the wild things are for example, if the book is only 10 pages and you need to make a half an hour-to-a two hour film you’re going to have to create a lot of story that wasn’t there originally. This isn’t to say let’s reinvent the wheel and completely change around how the story is told to make it into a feature length movie, (even though many writers do this). Sometimes all that needs to be done, is create a backstory for the characters and / or show more of their personality’s in detail. Which, to my understanding of the Where the wild things are movie is what they did. However, the less you have to work with and the smaller the original media the more likely the movie won’t be strong enough to support its own weight.

So, even though though the square cubed law explains biomechanical principles it can applied to metaphysical principles as well.

You can’t take something with an original size of ten pages such as Where the wild things are and make it into a movie without adding or extending scenes. Just like you can’t blow up an insect or another animal without restructuring their biology to enable their body to work at a larger size you can’t blow up a book into a movie without restructuring the story to work at a longer length. Unfortunately for fans, what ends up happening, is that once the book is scaled up you can begin to see the distortion from the book to movie translation, much like Photoshop’s ‘guess’ as to what an image looks like scaled up from it’s original version.

However, the explanation for what happens when adapting a screenplay from a short a story into a movie isn’t why I’m writing. I’m writing, to try and shed some light on the reasons possibly why it is you liked the book better.

Obviously, books and movies are very different mediums. When you read, you create your own movie in a sense. You produce your own movie in your head with how the characters speak, what they look like, and what their surroundings are like; even if the author describes in great detail what they sound like, look like, and where they are. Which is different with movies because this is the author’s, as well as any number of other people involved in the film’s, combined interpretation of what they saw and want to be seen in the movie.

I’m not sure what goes on during the publishing and producing of a book, but, it feels like, there’s more opportunities to say what you want and produce it how you want so long as the publisher is okay with what is being printed. And based on one of my favorite author’s (Chuck Palahniuk) quotes, it sounds as though he’s inclined to feel the same way:

But the first time I read ‘Guts’, nobody fainted. My goal was just to write some new form of horror story, something based on the ordinary world. Without supernatural monsters or magic. It would be a book you wouldn’t want to keep next to your bed. A book that would be a trapdoor down into some place dark. A place only you could go, alone, when you opened the cover. Because only books have that power. A motion picture, or music, or television, they have to maintain a certain decorum in order to be broadcast to a vast audience. Other forms of mass media cost too much to product to risk reaching only a limited audience. But a book… A book is cheap to print and bind. A book is as private and consensual as sex. A book takes time and effort to consume – something that gives a reader every chance to walk away. Actually, so few people make the effort to read that it’s difficult to call books a ‘mass medium’. No one really gives a damn about books. No one has bothered to ban a book in decades. But with that disregard comes the freedom that only books have. And if a storyteller is going to write novels instead of screenplays, that’s a freedom you need to exploit. Otherwise, write a movie. That’s where the big money’s at. Write for television. But, if you want the freedom to go anywhere, talk about anything, then write books. That’s why I wrote ‘Guts’. Just a three-act short story based on true-life anecdotes. People write to say this story is the funniest they’ve ever heard. People write to say it’s the saddest they’ve ever heard. And ‘Guts’ is by no means the darkest or funniest or most upsetting story from the novel Haunted. Some, I didn’t dare read in public. These are the places that only books can go. This is the advantage that books still have. This is why I write. Thank you for reading my work.”

He’s a critically acclaimed popular sought after writer that knows the business inside of movies and out. More so, he’s also the author of Fight Club, who I’d warrant a guess to say, the majority of the people that read the book and saw the movie, would have to say that people liked Fight Club the movie better. Why that is, I don’t know, I can only speculate. Ask around, I’m sure you’ll find this to be the census.

There’s lots of factors to consider when determining why you liked the book better. 1) When directors cast roles for films, they don’t always get it the way you would want it. And it’s not always entirely their fault, it’s not always just the opinion of the director for what stays and what goes. Sometimes certain people are unavailable or don’t want the role or they need to cast someone for other obscure various reasons. 2) Highly elaborate sets may be wonderful but they may not be a faithful portrayal or your interpretation. You may find yourself disappointed by movie versions that don’t live up to your imagination. 3) Another problem many people have is the deletion of certain scenarios the reader read in the book, important or not, the reader is left wondering why would they take that out? Because even though the scene didn’t translate to film or they didn’t have room for it or they felt it was unnecessary, the reader feels as though that scene was important enough to them to understand the book because it was necessary for their imagination to fill in the gaps. If the director must make a shorter film, there’s no way to include everything, especially when it comes from a long book. 4) Not only is deletion of scenes a common reason why people usually like the book better but also the addition of scenes not created by the writer as well. And the director, feels as though it was necessary to add those scenes to show you, explain or heighten the viewing experience to try and get the attention of the viewer good or bad / well received or not well received.

So the majority of the reasons for why you liked the book better is because of differing opinions among many people. The opinion of the director, the opinion of the media, the opinion of society, the author, critics, cast members, crew members, and yourself. All warring with one another on what they think is correct book to movie translation.

That’s why you liked the book better. Because nothing is better than what you create yourself. Nothing is better than the euphoria of feeling that you are right.

The simple fact of the matter is, as much as we want to see our favorite characters in live-action 3D environments on screen, we don’t. Because the only way they will match up to our expectations is if we create it ourselves. It’s easier to hate on something picking out all the little things that should have been done than to just do something great yourself.

But knowing that the majority of us cannot create or be a part of a feature length movie, it makes sense that we settle on criticism. However, in order for us to fully enjoy the movie version just as much as we enjoy the book we might have to settle for being fair about our expectations and consider that someone might actually know better than us.

However, having said that, it’s important that Hollywood recognize it’s societal responsibility by factoring in science prior to production. As well as respecting the opinions of others, even though it’s their movie to make doesn’t mean it’s their movie. We paid for the book, we spent time to consume the book, “when an artist creates, whatever they create belongs to society.”–South Park

You liked the book better because they are better when people aren’t respectful for the original media and opinions of others.