Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46379
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/46379
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I think in recent years the gap between what is "possible" in a prose vs. film (both cinema and TV) has narrowed significantly - historically the limitations and expense of things like CGI and practical effects made some of the more exotic genres such as Sci-Fi and Fantasy difficult to translate onto film. This is realistically no longer the case in 2019 - assuming budget can be found of course!

That doesn't mean there aren't still potential advantages to prose though - and you're probably already taking advantage of them without even realizing it!

**Length**

While audiences are more accepting of longer films then they used to be (remember all the fuss over _Titanic_ at 195 mins? _Avengers: Endgame_ is only 15 minutes shorter!) getting a reasonable-length novel into even three hours screen time is difficult without making cuts. TV used to be even more affected - the need to make relatively self-contained stories in ~45 mins of run time severely hampered the complexity and length of stories you could tell, binge-watching and the streaming services have changed that significantly now. But even so the episodic splits need taking account of and mean the story can suffer.

**Inner thoughts and feelings**

Being in a character's POV (either first or third person limited) can give you a great deal more scope for showing their _internal_ state. On screen you are limited to how the character _presents_, unless you do narration devices whereas in prose you can show what they are thinking/feeling _and_ how they are acting essentially simultaneously. You can be much more engaging with _physical_ sensations as well in much the same way. Which leads me to..

**POV options**

First person, Third person, Third person-limited, _Multiple_ POVS - these give you multiple ways to tell the story and engage with character(s).

**Passage of time**

While CGI and practical effects have again reduced this in a book you can naturally show the entire life cycle of a character. Complete with growing up, aging etc far easier. You can reverse this as well or even halt it. David Boreanez played a "never-aging" immortal for ~7 years on TV. And one who was supposed to be visually young in age. They pulled it off - pretty well actually. But how long could you do that for before the suspension of disbelief gets absurd? Sure you can digitally de-age people reasonably well these days (see Samuel L. Jackson in _Captain Marvel_) but at a certain point it's going to start becoming an issue.

**Anyone can die**

Want to shock-kill your biggest character? No problem - no worries about contracts or anything like that. _Game of Thrones_ was notable in TV in that people in the main cast were almost as vulnerable to the plot as a redshirt. In most TV series you know that the majority of the time the main cast is going to make it out of peril because, well they are the main cast - they are in the opening credits and everything.

**Much less "censorship"**

Censorship feels like too strong a word - but movies and TV have a much tougher time getting more "adult" content such as violence and swearing in then books do. They have regulatory bodies and age ratings to worry about. _Game of Thrones_ was considered extremely edgy for TV (even for HBO) - and it's not even that full-on by book standards (can you imagine anyone trying to get an uncut version of Scott Lynch's _Gentleman Bastards_ series on to TV?)

Original score: 36