“It occurred to me then that, for the first time in as long as I could remember, I had absolutely no desire to log back into the OASIS.”

Upon reading that last line of Ernest Cline’s sci-fi novel Ready Player One, my husband, Daniel, let out the telling, satisfied sigh of a reader finishing a thoroughly enjoyed book. As we went on to discuss his post-read thoughts, he admitted he wasn’t sure how he would’ve felt about the movie—which he’d seen in theaters and loved—if he had read the book first.

His observation reminded me of my own thoughts from when we watched the movie for the first time. After the credits rolled and we left the theater back in 2018, Daniel had only nice things to say, while I gave it the it-was-fine shrug before making the predictable announcement that the book was better.

But when I rewatched the movie later, I realized every criticism I had was about how a specific scene or plotline differed from the book. That led me to believe that if I hadn’t read the book, I would’ve been just as complimentary of the film as Daniel was. Most of us readers have made the “the book was better” declaration once—or five hundred times—but lately, I’ve started to question it. I can’t help but ask myself: Was the book really better? Or was it just different?

If movie studios want readers to buy tickets to see films based on beloved books, of course they should try to align their scripts with the spirit of the characters and themes. But measuring a written medium against a visual one may not always be fair. I love it when I hear a book I’ve read is headed for the big screen, but I’m starting to think I need to adjust my mindset before I grab my popcorn and soda and take a seat. Expecting a film to develop characters or build worlds in two hours that took hundreds of pages in the book sets both me and the film up for disappointment. Time constraints, the limits of technology, and the bias of our own imaginations rig the competition in favor of the book.

If the average adult reading speed is 250 words per minute, it would take about seven to eight hours to read Ready Player One, giving Cline that same amount of time to develop Wade Watts (aka Parzival) as a person, to show his strengths and weaknesses, his fears, and his obsession with the egg hunt, while describing the immensely complex and meticulously detailed virtual world of the OASIS. Is it fair to demand that a film accomplish in 140 minutes what took the book eight hours? Not only is it not fair, but it’s not practical.

In my viewing experience, the book-to-movie adaptations I’ve liked the least are those that try to cram too much of the book’s lore into the film, leading to lacking character development. Take 1984’s Dune, directed by David Lynch. Obviously, this is just my opinion, but that movie was a confusing bore that failed to develop its characters because it was too busy building an overly complex universe for the audience. Now, I was a kid when I first watched it, so maybe it was just too mature for me, and, also, a lot of my confusion could’ve been because I hadn’t read Frank Herbert’s novel yet. Arrakis, House Atreides, and the Fremen were all totally new to me. But even if I had been more prepared, I think the characters would still have felt flat. It takes the average reader about 13 hours to read Dune, while Lynch tried to tell the same story in just over two hours.

The newest Dune movies, which I loved, seemed to recognize that challenge and wisely split the story into two parts, each well over two hours. That said, time alone isn’t what made the new Dune better than the 1984 version. Advances in technology helped Dune: Part One and Dune: Part Two earn praise from both readers of the book and newcomers alike. The new visualizations of the sandworms, planets, and spacecraft are not only stunning and realistic but also faithful tributes to the original artwork inspired by Herbert’s world. That kind of technology simply didn’t exist in 1984.

Nothing takes me out of a movie based on a book I’ve read faster than bad CGI that fails to live up to the written descriptions of a fictional world. But even with the incredible technology of today, I still tend to side with the book in the book vs. movie debate, and I think that comes down to the bias of my imagination. An author guides our minds through description, but our imaginations still personalize every character and setting we grow to love. We bring those mental images with us to the theater.

For me, the Allison-tailored versions of characters and worlds almost set my film-viewing experience up for disappointment. There’s simply no way a movie studio could ever reach into my brain and project what I’ve imagined onto the screen. I recently saw a clip on TikTok of actor Tom Hardy talking about Pride & Prejudice.Disclaimer: I have no idea if the clip was real—who even knows what’s legit on the internet anymore? But supposedly, he’d auditioned for the role of Mr. Darcy, and if you’ve seen the 2005 version, you know he didn’t get the job. Apparently, when they gave him the bad news, a casting person told him that every woman has her own picture of Mr. Darcy in her mind—and he was none of them. Harsh, right? But that casting director was right that we hold tight to our personal mental images of characters and worlds, so how could any filmmaker ever meet all of our different expectations?

So, should readers stop watching movies based on books? No, not at all. But I do think if we adjust our mindset before stepping into the theater—by acknowledging that comparing books to movies is sometimes like comparing apples to oranges—we might be able to enjoy both. Apples are great, and so are oranges, but if you bite into an orange expecting it to taste like an apple, you’re going to be disappointed.

Instead of comparing the book to the movie, focus on the story. Set aside the movie’s differences from the book, and judge it on its own merits. Was the plot interesting? Were the characters developed? Did the movie give you all the feels? On my second watch of Ready Player One, my answers to those questions were yes, which changed my initial reaction from “the book was better” to “the book was good, and so was the movie.” 

What do you think? Should we judge books against movies, or treat them as different fruits from the same storytelling tree? And if you’re in the mood for a new story, check out BATTERED & TORN.