Bestselling author Steven Pressfield addressed "the ongoing question of book vs. movie" at Word & Film: "The Godfather, yes. To Kill a Mockingbird, definitely. Maybe a few others. But with these notable exceptions, almost every adaptation of a novel is less satisfying than the book itself. Why? Not because film is an inferior medium. You and I love film. But the form demands truncation, condensation, and simplification--and none of these helps any work of fiction." Pressfield also noted the particular challenges faced by a novel-to-film adapter:
- Make it shorter. A lot shorter.
- Make it work in a rhythm.
- Find the core throughline and cut everything else.
- Strip it down to three acts.
- Lose all interior prose and poetry.
- Cut all long speeches.
- Make it work for a single star.
"Nothing is better than a great film," Pressfield observed. "But the overflowing chalice of the novel, particularly a full-blooded one, is often more than the shot glass of film can contain. A lot of good booze gets spilled onto the floor. Often short stories (see Philip K. Dick) or even magazine articles make better material for adaptation than full-on novels. The adapter doesn’t need to be loyal. He can tear down and build afresh."