Should books be adapted into movies?

Movie adaptations make the books more popular

Question: Should books be adapted into movies?
Position1 of 3›: Books should be adapted into movies
Argument‹5 of 5: Movie adaptations make the books more popular

Critically acclaimed movie adaptations usually bring attention to the book that inspired it, and already best-selling books will benefit from a movie production through sales.

The argument

Movies are generally easier to consume. Hence more people can or are more willing to access them; it takes hours or days to read a book, but only two hours to watch a movie. Creating movie adaptations brings more attention to the book itself. By obtaining new audiences in the film sector, the book gets good publicity. People who enjoyed the movie may consider purchasing the book to find out more about the story and characters. Additionally, people who have seen trailers for the movie may want to read the book before they see the movie, which also contributes to more book sales. While not a universal rule, there is absolutely a correlation between movie adaptations being released and increases in book sales. For instance, the book "The Help" came out in 2009 and the book "Room" came out in 2010. Yet, sales for these books skyrocketed in 2011, when movie adaptations of both books were released in theaters. These two books were actually #4 and #5 on a list of Top Ten Best Selling books of 2011 in the UK, which is due primarily to their highly successful movie adaptations.

Premises

[P1]Movies are easier and quicker to consume than books, so a film adaptation exposes a story to a far wider audience than the book could reach alone. [P2] That exposure drives book sales — viewers buy the book to learn more or read it before seeing the film — as shown by "The Help" and "Room," whose sales skyrocketed to #4 and #5 on the UK bestseller list in 2011 when their adaptations were released. [C] Because movie adaptations make books more popular, books should be adapted into movies.

Counter-arguments

Not all movie adaptations are well-received. A movie adaptation that receives negative reviews could create negative associations with the book as well. Someone who sees a movie adaptation and hates it is less likely to read the book than someone who does not already have that negative association with the book. Another counter argument is that many people who see a movie adaptation are not interested in reading the book because the plot has already been "spoiled" by the movie. Generally, movie adaptations are faithful to the plots of the books they are based on. Even if there are some differences, major plot points and twists are often kept the same. Someone who watched the movie adaptation and already knows the ending of the book may not be interested in reading the book, since they already know what will happen. Thus, movie adaptations do not necessarily make the book more popular.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Reaching a wider audience is a claim about the film rather than the book, and the premise assumes the two transfer. Ease of consumption is also the reason the effect might not occur, since a viewer who has taken in the story in two hours has less reason to spend a fortnight on the novel — the counter's second point. [Rejecting P2] The two examples establish that adaptations can lift sales, which nobody disputes, and they are drawn from the successful cases. What the conclusion needs is the general pattern, including the poorly received adaptations and the books that did not move, and the premise selects from one side only. Bestseller placings in a release week also measure a spike rather than a durable change in a book's readership. [Rejecting C] The conclusion treats sales as the criterion. "Should be adapted" is a judgement about literature and film as much as about commerce, and the objections the position faces — that an adaptation fixes one reading of a book and displaces the reader's own — are untouched by evidence from the bestseller list.