What if the RotS movie was exactly like it's Senior Novel?

The RotS Novel was written before the movie was finished, which is why there's a plethora of contradictions between the movie and the novel left, right and centre. But what if the movie was exactly like the novel in terms of the fight sequences, character actions and dialogue? What that would've been a better for the movie, worse for the movie, or neither?

It'd be awful. Far longer, far darker, and a lot of the dialogue would have bored younger kids (e.g. Mace and Obi-Wan talking about taking action against the Supreme Chancellor, Yoda/Obi-Wan/Mace talking, Mace and Obi-Wan talking about Grievous). Also, most of the nuanced bits like Dooku, Anakin and Obi-Wan's thoughts would have to be cut due to the limits of visual imagery.

Novels are generally better than the films because the author not only has a greater length (novellas can be of any length whereas films are generally 2 1/5 hours) but can also write about and appeal to senses and concepts you simply can't convey in films, such as the dragon, Anakin's self-hatred, and some of the cheesier writing like the monologues at the beginning and the end.

And there's virtually nothing the novel can do better than the original film when it comes to the opening scene.

For the most part better. While I agree with BoD that you'd have to cut stuff down there's a bunch of scenes in there that would've helped the plot. 

Even those it comes from the video game a change I would've made is keeping Anakin VS Mace in the film as well as Operation: Knightfall being shown on screen.

BoD wrote:It'd be awful. Far longer, far darker, and a lot of the dialogue would have bored younger kids (e.g. Mace and Obi-Wan talking about taking action against the Supreme Chancellor, Yoda/Obi-Wan/Mace talking, Mace and Obi-Wan talking about Grievous). Also, most of the nuanced bits like Dooku, Anakin and Obi-Wan's thoughts would have to be cut due to the limits of visual imagery.

Novels are generally better than the films because the author not only has a greater length (novellas can be of any length whereas films are generally 2 1/5 hours) but can also write about and appeal to senses and concepts you simply can't convey in films, such as the dragon, Anakin's self-hatred, and some of the cheesier writing like the monologues at the beginning and the end.

And there's virtually nothing the novel can do better than the original film when it comes to the opening scene.

Yeah but for instance, just imagine Anakin's voice soundling like Dooku when he gets butt hurt at being denied the rank of master

BoD wrote:It'd be awful. Far longer, far darker, and a lot of the dialogue would have bored younger kids

Lol, "dark" doesn't make stories good or bad.

And yeah, dialogue? Compare the book version of yoda vs sids and the film version. The novel's dialogue is hilariously better.

Novels are generally better than the films because the author not only has a greater length

Nah, visual mediums are generally better than written works because there's vastly more tools to use to tell your story. But that won't matter if you're shit at using said tools.

BoD wrote:It'd be awful. Far longer, far darker, and a lot of the dialogue would have bored younger kids

Honestly who cares?  If Lucas was intent on making ROTS a family friendly kids movie, he wouldn't have showcased a scene where Anakin is burning his ass off while screaming in agony or imply he killed children at the temple.

OT- Absolutely yes. Not to mention the novel has a less goofier version of Grievous and actually gives us a proper relationship between Anakin and Obi Wan. The only thing I would get rid off is the whole shit about Dooku being a xenophobic against aliens. That was just stupid.