Are books better than the movie?

Reddevil63 · 16-07-2005, 18:57

As per topic.

Personally I think books are better than the movie version.

TheBlueRaja · 16-07-2005, 19:00

100% agree - never seen a movie yet that I enjoyed as much as the book. Movies are good but at the end of the day a movie directors vision of something which is limited by a specific budget or technology is nowhere near as good as the one in your head.

Additionally, the content is usually trimmed to satisfy cinema schedules.

makikomi · 16-07-2005, 19:12

I agree with you completely.

With books, you get a chance to see how the characters are thinking, and you can picture the scenes in your head.

With films there is often a bit of Hollywood-isation involved, the scenes are rarely how you picture them, and trying to pack into 2 hours what could be 14 hours' reading is never gonna work 100%.

I read Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" and thought it an excellent read. The film was a big disappointment. Too many cliches, and strayed too far from the original story.

On the other hand, if a film is done well, it can add a lot to the book. I read "Blackhawk Down" before I saw the film, and got an idea of how desperate the situation was for the soldiers involved. When I saw the film (which was made with full-co-operation of the people that were actually there) it made me realise how horrifying it must have been, and the bravery of the troops. The old saying "a picture tells a thousand words" can ring true then.

However, by and large I usually prefer to see a film AFTER I've read the book, not before.

**Paul M** · 16-07-2005, 20:08

I would think the answer depends on which you saw/read first.

dilligaf1701 · 16-07-2005, 20:10

I usually prefer the book to the film.

The most notable exception to this would be The Tommyknockers. Which I suppose shouldn't count as it's more a mini series than a film. but the series was MUCH better than the book.

Roy MM · 16-07-2005, 20:16

Book and your minds eye everytime.

Lord Nikon · 16-07-2005, 20:18

Dunno, I always found Tolkein spends too much time building a scene in LOTR, I struggled to read it as I found my attention drifting too often, yet the movies were very enjoyable.

I guess it's down to how well the books were written, and how well the movies were made.

Gareth · 16-07-2005, 20:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

I would think the answer depends on which you saw/read first.

Not necessarily.... just as an example, I saw Carrie first, then read the book. The book's much better. Same with IT... book's better by far. Maybe it's just King's novels that don't translate well to film, but it was also the same for Charlie & the Chocolate Factory which I've just watched and then read with my son.

Too often I don't have time to read a book so the film is a convenient alternative, but I'm struggling to find a better film than a book I've read.

punky · 16-07-2005, 20:30

Almost without exception, books are better than movies. I think I have seen a movie that is better than it's book, but I can't remember which one off the top of my head.

For one thing, a book often sets more of the atmosphere than a movie, a movie tends to gloss over the less important, but still good material in the book.

**Damien** · 16-07-2005, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Dunno, I always found Tolkein spends too much time building a scene in LOTR, I struggled to read it as I found my attention drifting too often, yet the movies were very enjoyable.

I guess it's down to how well the books were written, and how well the movies were made.

I have to agree.

LOTR books were awful, so much desciption. It drives you crazy, they change scene enough and then gives pages after pages of description. The plot could fit into one book! The films are much better, but i have to think that the books are thin on plot and this caused problems in the movies as it does drag in places and they dont have the benefit of waffleing on.

Bex · 16-07-2005, 21:22

i'd go with book 99.9% of the time.... i have a fairly vivid imagination, and if i watch a movie, i always come away disappointed that the characters aren't as i imagined them. also film generally stray to far from the books... an example which springs to mind are the bridget jone's diary films/books... the film was completely different to the books,,,, the films left out whole parts of the plots

Mal · 16-07-2005, 21:27

Generally, I prefer the book version over the film. The only time that I seen a film where it was (nearly) the same as the book was Fight Club. A couple of alterations, that was it. I read the book after the film and was really surprised in how the film turned out.

Jules · 16-07-2005, 21:33

I can read a book then watch the film but I can never watch the film first then read the book....strange

Mal · 16-07-2005, 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyme38

I can read a book then watch the film but I can never watch the film first then read the book....strange

Well, if I've enjoyed the film and I find out that it came from a book, I sometimes get the book just to see what it was like.

**Damien** · 16-07-2005, 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by whyme38

I can read a book then watch the film but I can never watch the film first then read the book....strange

Films are passive, it doesn require much effort on your part. Reading requires a insane amount of attention and time. The majority of the time the motivation of reading a book is the need to know what happens next, if you already know then most of the motivation is gone. At least thats what its like for me