Analyse the shortcomings of the movie adaptation over the novel, and the inherent benefits a movie adaptation brings with it over its novel counterpart. There's a great deal of debate about the movie toning things down — here you can discuss the role of censorship. And this might bring you to conclude that apart from the lack of motion, action, and music, the book is better than the movie adaptation.
This is a broader argument in the original work vs adaptation department (usually noted in novel vs movie arguments). How can one compare two radically different treatments of the same origin material, especially if the adaptions aren't done by the original creators? While always a good idea for debate, the actual idea that one can be better than the other comes down to comparing the original to like-material and the adaption to like-treatments of other work. Example: You should talk of how a successful adaption like "Lord of the Rings" works while an unsuccessful one, say "Super Mario Bros." doesn't and why. Recreating the book in movie form is not the goal, making a film feature inspired by the book elements is, don't fall into the trap of being able to compare a movie to a book. You wouldn't compare "Citizen Kane" with "Fahrenheit 451", so it becomes about seeing whether a movie adaption of a novel has successfully presented the original material in film form effectively with the techniques available and true to the intention of the novel (going back to "Lord of the Rings" note while the story is the same, the films are almost nothing like the books). This can easily address the idea of "lack of motion, action and music" by showing how it's not the techniques an art form lacks that make any difference, but the effective use of the ones at hand (the ways of using written word for books, and the ways of utilizing visual and audio methods for film). The idea of censorship is a great starting place. – smartstooge9 years ago