Six Important Differences Between Filmed and Narrated Stories

In The Last Jedi, Luke discovers that books can be very different than film.

Mythcreants frequently uses movies and shows to discuss storytelling techniques. Our readers are more familiar with these big-budget works, and most storytelling principles are universal. However, videos and books are different mediums that come with their own storytelling trade-offs, not to mention different technical implementation. Since many writers consume most of their stories via film, it’s easy to treat written works like they are movies, but that’s a mistake. Let’s go over six important differences.

1. Films Can Convey Large Visuals in Detail

Gandalf riding toward the great walled city of Ministereth from Lord of the Rings The Lord of the Rings movies distilled Tolkien’s notoriously long description into beautiful scenery.

We all know the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words.” What takes pages of description in writing is only one panorama on-screen. Movies and TV shows can create an environment that’s large, detailed, and immersive. This can not only make the audience feel like they’re there but also communicate complex layouts and lots of simultaneous actions. If you have a battle scene, a few images can show the audience what’s happening everywhere.

It can be disappointing to realize that text isn’t capable of the same feat. That doesn’t mean that your narration can’t evoke stunning visuals or create a strong sense of place. However, text can’t create the same large and detailed picture that visuals can. Readers quickly get bored with lots of description, and their ability to assemble schematics into visuals in their minds is limited. When writers try to convey a crystal-clear image of exactly what the environment looks like or exactly what’s happening in a scene, it only sabotages their stories.

Instead, narration paints the big picture and relies on readers to fill in the missing pieces.

  • Offering a few concrete details is essential, but those things exist to represent a larger picture. For instance, if the scene is in a forest, briefly describe a few plants, animals, or other features that embody the atmosphere you want. Don’t dwell on any one thing for too long unless it’s important to the story, or it will set the wrong expectation.
  • Details are for evoking the imagination, not for schematics. It’s not helpful to mention exact measurements; use subjective descriptors for size and space. Similarly, you don’t need to mention right or left unless it’s important to keep track of which side is which for story reasons.
  • Focus on the implications of what’s happening in a scene over the exact logistics. If one character maneuvers around another during a fight, what matters is that they are positioned to strike a vulnerable spot, not that they’ve jumped three feet to the left, putting them behind their opponent’s shield arm, and are now balancing on their right foot. 

For more on this, see my article Narrating Layout & Position.

2. Narration Still Conveys Information Better

An attractive black teacher presides over a an outdoor classroom The movie Serenity opens with a wild string of flashbacks to fill in exposition. One of them is even a classroom so there’s an excuse to teach obvious world facts to viewers.

I recently discussed exposition and its importance to stories. We think about exposition as useless filler, but that’s only when it’s done in excess. Otherwise, it performs critical functions like reducing confusion and explaining why the conflicts of the story matter. Without that, the story would suffer. In a written work, exposition of any kind is usually worked into the narration. This offers maximum flexibility in communicating the right information during the right scene.

Without narration, screenwriters struggle to convey essential information that isn’t evident in a scene. Most often, they rely on dialogue. Doing this can quickly ruin the dialogue, since audiences can tell when characters are saying things that they have no reason to say. That’s why novelists shouldn’t use this method unless the characters actually need to discuss important information. But this is the subtlest method screenwriters have at their disposal, and skilled actors can sell lines that would be laughable in print.

Because screenwriters rely on dialogue to convey information, that means characters don’t spend as much time alone. Most scenes require two characters, or at least a character and an animal companion to monologue at. Since visuals also make it easier to keep track of characters, movies and shows often have a larger cast than a written story of the same size could handle.

When dialogue isn’t enough, films also use flashbacks to convey information. This leads to the occasional absurd movie opening were the audience is shown one flashback scene after another, because that’s the closest thing screenwriters have to a large exposition dump. All these flashbacks on-screen can lead novel writers to think that flashbacks are a good storytelling tool, when they’re actually boring in most cases. In a written work, flashbacks are only worth using when they reveal something that will change the outcome of future events. 

3. Narration Can Be More Imaginative

Kirk, Spock, and two Aliens If you watch Star Trek, you just have to pretend that all the humans in makeup are actually aliens.

If you’re a Star Trek fan, you’ve heard the jokes about “forehead aliens.” Most alien species in the franchise only differ visually from humans in that they have a pattern of ridges on their forehead. This is obviously unrealistic, and it led to a Next Generation episode that suggested all the humanoid aliens on the show have a common origin with humans.

Of course, Star Trek didn’t make forehead aliens because that’s what the studio thought real aliens would look like. TV shows usually have a limited budget for costumes and special effects, and to be relatable, aliens need to be played by human actors. Putting ridges on the forehead leaves the rest of the face free for speech or facial expressions. While progress in special effects and costuming has made forehead ridges a thing of the past, most stories on the screen have practical limitations on what can go into the story, whether it’s a limit on the number of sets, the size of the cast, or the amount of makeup.

Novelists have no such constraints. As long as they don’t make their story too complex for readers to comprehend, they can include whatever they can dream up. In turn, readers expect them to use their imaginations to its fullest. Speculative fiction writers are usually rewarded for creating outlandish things that a studio would have a hell of a time depicting.

This can become an issue when a writer wants to create an off-brand Star Trek. Big franchises can get away with a hokey look because they’re grandfathered in; that’s what their existing fans expect. But a writer who copies the limitations of a visual medium into their original novel will disappoint readers. Instead, use the flexibility your medium offers you.

4. Films Benefit From Sensory Spectacle

Dumbledore controls a sphere of water In the Harry Potter books, Dumbledore says that flashy magic is a sign of an amateur wizard. In the movies, he uses flashy magic.

Sights and sounds can get an instant reaction that text has more trouble achieving. And if those sensory aesthetics are good, the reaction will probably be positive. While a movie might reasonably open with a panning shot, a book that opens by describing a landscape is not off to a great start.

This distinction is especially important for action sequences. In film, it’s fun to see a helicopter crash into a building and blow up. Watching two fencers in a duel gets the blood pumping, especially with exciting music to enhance the mood. Unfortunately, fights are not as exciting in narration. They can be exciting simply because the stakes of a fight are often life or death, but any situation where life is on the line has that same advantage.

Because of the association between fights and excitement on-screen, writers and readers can mistakenly believe that what a boring story needs is more violence and destruction, instead of more conflict in the storytelling sense of the word. Writers might then add a fight scene where nothing important is at stake instead of actually raising the story’s tension with social conflicts or an impending deadline. And when fights are narrated, writers are likely to emphasize flashy moves instead of focusing on what matters to the story.

On the other hand, when books are adapted for the screen, it’s common to add flashy visuals that weren’t in the original. A great example of this is the Harry Potter series. In the books, apparition is overwhelmingly used by wizards for spell transport, and it happens without any kind of fancy effects. But during a wizard battle in the fifth movie, Team Good turns into white smoke and Team Evil turns into black smoke. The color coding doesn’t make much sense but uses the visual medium to its fullest.

5. Films Have Trouble With Internal Conflicts

Luke and Vader Fight in Return of the Jedi In Return of the Jedi, we wouldn’t even know Luke was tempted by the dark side of the force except the villains keep saying he is.

Stories feature a whole host of conflicts that take place within the mind of a character. Generally, these conflicts come into play when a character is trying to either figure out a puzzle or make a difficult choice. These conflicts are not only the main building blocks of character arcs, but they’re also important for creating a satisfying ending. Winning their internal struggle, whether it’s a battle against temptation or seeing through a clever disguise, makes it feel like a character has earned their victory.

But without narration, movies and TV shows can’t show internal conflicts directly; they have to externalize them. They generally do this with dialogue that highlights the emotional or intellectual challenges characters are facing and with acting that emphasizes a character’s hesitation or conflicted feelings. Fight scenes often show a clever move the hero makes to win the day after almost being defeated, but it’s not unusual for the turning point in a visual work to be glossed over.

Because films can’t show thoughts, they benefit more from reveals that don’t work if the audience knows what the hero knows. For instance, all might seem lost until the hero announces that everything has gone according to their secret plan. I refer to this as a hidden plan turning point, and films do it often because it doesn’t cost them as much. Visual storytellers are still capable of hiding too much from viewers, but they have a much easier time hiding information without straining believability, and they don’t rely on the same level of emotional closeness to keep audiences engaged.

Following the lead of films, writers often neglect narration that focuses on what’s happening inside a character’s head. They’ll leave readers to wonder what a character thinks or feels about a situation instead of turning that into a riveting conflict of its own. Copying the plots of visual works, they reach much too soon for reveals that require them to pull out of the hero’s head. That can be very costly to the story.

6. Actors Can Doom Their Characters

Lexa lies back in bed, blood dripping from the corner of her mouth When actress Alycia Debnam-Carey had other commitments, The 100 writers thought it would be okay to kill off her character, Lexa, as long as fans got to see her hook up with the lead first. It was not.

Because they often run for years, TV shows are vulnerable to unseen production changes. They often won’t know if they’ll get another season, they might run out of budget, and the show’s talent might leave at any time.

In turn, unexpected changes mean that characters are much more likely to die. When an actor leaves to pursue another opportunity, the character they are playing almost always has to be cut. The character doesn’t have to die, but death raises tension for the remaining characters and gives screenwriters an easy way to explain why the character isn’t around anymore. Since storytellers don’t have much control over when an actor quits, these character deaths can leave plot threads hanging and fans upset.

The frequency of deaths on TV can make writers think that killing off an important character is a better storytelling tactic than it is. When storytellers do their jobs well, audiences become really attached to protagonists. More often than not, killing one will cause some people to quit the story. If you kill off enough characters, even audience members who don’t leave will stop investing in the story emotionally. What’s the point of getting attached to a character if they’re just going to die? 

Deaths are especially upsetting when they happen mid-story. At the beginning, audiences are less invested in characters. At the end, it’s easier to give meaning to character deaths – a character might save the day by going out in a blaze of glory. That way, the character gets lots of candy and the fans wouldn’t get to see them in the next chapter anyway. While mid-story deaths are appropriate for very dark stories, they are much more alienating.

If you’re writing a novel, your story won’t be a flashy movie with a 100 million dollar budget. But in other ways, the medium you’re working in is more powerful. Use the depth and control that narration gives you.

P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?



  1. Dave L

    >they’ve jumped three feet to the left

    Then a step to the riiiight
    Put your hands on your hips
    And bring your knees in tiiiight

    Sorry. Couldn’t resist

  2. Dave L

    >Actors Can Doom Their Characters

    A good actor can save a character

    More than once I’ve seen a good actor make a character likable or interesting, when the character in the script was a dud

    • GeniusLemur

      Of course the reverse is also true: many characters who were good or great on page become terrible in some way (or many ways) when they’re played by some alleged actor who can’t convey the character or doesn’t even try.

  3. Jeppsson

    DS9 did that weird plot where Kira ended up a surrogate mother for Keiko’s and Brian’s fetus, because the actress playing Kira got pregnant in real life.

    • Bellis

      I loved that storyline so much! All of DS9s found family dynamics are so good!

  4. LeeEsq

    6 is something of a unique problem caused by television and film. When you had to go to a theater to see acting, the association between a particular character and a particular actor was a lot weaker. A play, especially if it was aimed at a mass audience, could go on for years with actors coming and going frequently with a few exceptions. Than film and tv came and particular roles became very strongly associated with particular actors. For film this wasn’t so much of a problem because actors could still do other roles even if they had a big role in popular franchise.

    For TV its’ a big problem because one of the lead actors might get bored and want to do something else, be offered a bigger and better playing part in a different series, or have to leave for health reasons. Since modern audiences seem less reluctant to accept a new actor in the same role because they don’t look quite right and perform the character slightly to very differently, writers need to do something so they kill the character or make them go away.

  5. LeeEsq

    Gene Rodenberry also pointed out that the forehead aliens allowed actors to act more than a full bodied alien costume would even if they could afford it. Without a vaguely human appearance, the performance just wouldn’t come across well.

  6. Leon

    Do you have any advice for comics (big, small or serial)?
    Comics definitely get the best of both worlds but there must surely be some pitfalls?

    • Oren Ashkenazi

      I would honestly say that comics get something of the worst from both worlds, rather than the best. You can have a narrator in comics, but it’s often considered clunky, and what you can have them say is limited. You have visuals, but only still images. You can’s show things from more than one angle, or in motion, and you don’t have actors to portray the characters.

      I’m by no means an expert on comics, what I’ve learned from my own attempts is that comics really need to be as simple as possible. There’s so little room in a comic, and you don’t have time to explain much, so it needs to be really easy for the reader to tell what’s happening.

      • Julia M.

        I wouldn’t say that. Comics can actually be used very well. For example, you can have the narrator say something, like “It wasn’t a big deal.” but you can show them doing something different, like smashing something, to show the disconnect between what the narrator is saying and what they are feeling. For example, in one comic book I read, called Skim, it is mostly narrated by Skim, the titular character, writing in her diary. In one panel, she says, “Dear diary, it’s snowing.” but she’s carving “I HATE EVERYTHING” in the snow. This emphasizes that she’s hiding from her emotional problems. Comics can also show several different events on a page, whereas movies can’t. Furthermore, comics can show things that would be heavy-handed in a movie, like using shadows for anxiety.

    • Chris Winkle

      I don’t know that I would say worst of both worlds, but there isn’t much that a comic can do that a video can’t, and comics don’t benefit from sound or motion, so… it’s basically video but worse. Being capable of thoughts and narration is a bonus, but the expectation is that you won’t use those tools a lot. Comics are popular because it’s possible for just one or two people to produce them, and other methods of visual storytelling are basically out of reach at that level.

      Still better than audio dramas though! Now that’s a challenging medium.

    • Leon

      Even very simple comics like Scot Pilgrim do a marvelous job of conveying motion, narration can be substituted for very limited internal monologues or simply dropping clues into the background. I’ve seen pages simultaneously show different pov’s. Many stories in 2000AD could only work as comics, simply because the density and weirdness of the details.
      A thing comics can do that other mediums can’t is show several nuanced actions imultaneously, where narration would be tedious and there would be to much to absorb if it were filmed.

      I just feel like there must be a reason, beyond prejudice (and the time it takes to draw the comics with amazing art), that keeps comics from being the mainstream storytelling medium.

      Could it be that the audience wants to see actors who they want to relate to, or read about characters who they can imagine any way they like?

      • Jeppsson


        Special comic book advantages:
        1. You can absorb more visual info when you can look for however long you like on a picture.
        2. You can go back and forth on how much you wanna do with visuals and how much you wanna do with text. Lots of text can be perfectly fine in a comic, it all depends on how it’s executed.

      • Maria

        Comics author here. Much to say about the matter (Jeppsson is right, Oren is wrong – you can do different camera angles, and you can do motion, you can integrate narration seamlessly. You can do detailed scenes and minimalistic ones. You can do introspection. Hellboy the comic is better then Hellboy the movies and I will fight you on this :D. Comics may not be mainstresm in the USA (I blame the superheroes, but it’s more complex than that) but look at Japan (and the diversity of subjects there) (I am not mentioning France, which is also a good example, cause the market there is oversaturated and the discussion woyld be too complex for my abilities).

      • Maria

        Now for the disadvantages :(. When Chris says comics are popular because it’s easy for one/two people to produce them, I assume she means “popular among creators”. I also have a feeling both Oren and Chris talk about short stories, or at least short episodes linked together in a webcomic. Something closer to the comic-strip, that is why Oren mentions the space contraints. It is, however, incredibly hard to do professional looking comics alone (…even if you are the best storyteller-artist, it still takes forever/page). Long-form takes a lot of time, and unfortunatedly you either don’t see a return of investment on the work even if the book gets published and sells, or you need to build a fanbase and the return of investment will take a long time. I know writers run into similar problems, but they don’t have to worry about colour theory :)). And I drew a hundred pages and people can read them in half an hour, an hour tops.

      • Maria

        …I would also argue that Scott Pildrim fools you into thinking it’s a simple comic . It’s not, it’s just not as realistically drawn as other works. But the perspective! The many many many details on those pages! And most of all the story (which is complex and silly at a first lecture, but in fact incredibly profound). I have oppinions and feelings

  7. Javier

    Would you make a book or an e-book with your articles? I would buy it.

    • Chris Winkle

      Thanks. I certainly plan to, but I have to replace the website first, so it’s going to be a while yet unfortunately.

  8. Tifa

    So would this hypothetically make animated series and animated movies the best of both worlds?

    • Chris Winkle

      Animation definitely has some advantages over live action, including the ability to make weird aliens, and if an actor leaves, they generally replace them rather than cut the character out. It still has some budget and production constraints. Drawing takes a lot of time and detailed drawings can be budget-busting. But the main thing is that like live action, it doesn’t have narration. Narration is where most of the power of writing comes from, but as soon as you add a visual component, the expectation becomes that the audience will be primarily witnessing the story and not hearing about it through narration.

  9. Chron

    #2 is EASILY overused. Authors tend to overexplain what’s going on in characters’ heads to the point of redundantly spoonfeeding motivations, feelings, and the like, when mere character actions could suffice. I long to read novels for which I’m allowed to use my own imagination to discover characters as I read the story, and not be led through a straight-shot maze from beginning to an inevitable conclusion. I don’t know what books you’re reading to believe what you say in #5, but I have yet to see any author finally “neglect” their character’s inner blabbermouth.

    And comic books are the worst at this: it’s a visual medium that overexplains its characters to the point of tedium. And you wonder why the comics industry is faltering.

    • Martin Christopher

      That’s not really an issue with the medium, but with the superhero and shonen genres. Take for example Hellboy or Monster, and they don’t have any of that problem.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy (updated 03/28/20) and our privacy policy for details on how we moderate comments and who receives your information.