Is the book always better than the movie?

Discussion in 'Books' started by angela5pointo, Apr 4, 2014.

  1. angela5pointo

    angela5pointo New Member

    I have been an avid reader all my life. In many cases, the books I have read were turned into movies, such as Hunger Games, Divergent, and The Da Vinci Code. I believe The Da Vinci Code was the most disappointing movie made into a book. However, the Hunger Games and Divergent were ok remakes. At this point in my life, I have not watched a movie that was as good as or better than the book. Are there any books you have read, where the movie is as good or better than the book?
  2. cookingma

    cookingma New Member

    I am also an avid reader. The one movie that comes to mind that is just as good as the book is Pet Sematary by Stephen King. He has a hand in making all of his books come to life in the movies and there are a few that are really close. I think Pet Sematary is the best however.
    Points2shop70422 likes this.
  3. angela5pointo

    angela5pointo New Member

    True!!! I have read the book and watched the movie. It was a good movie, however I still liked the book better. I think I just have such a vivid imagination of what is going on in my head compared to how it all plays out in the movies!
  4. Matt Clary

    Matt Clary New Member

    I believe "the book is always better" has become a cliche because it really is true. Movies are simply not capable of going as in depth as a book, so if a movie is based on a book there is absolutely no way the proper story can be told. This is why I almost always prefer original movies. The story was designed to be told in the medium of film as opposed to books. Otherwise, the filmmaker has to compromise on which parts they want to cut out for time compression instead of solely focusing on the story.
    Persa likes this.
  5. Ilia Jones

    Ilia Jones New Member

    The first book-turned-movie that comes to mind when looking at this question is Harry Potter. The books were great and the movies were great. Granted, the books go into more detail and really develop the characters, that is something that is expected as it would be impossible to fit every detail into a two hour film.
    Turquoia likes this.
  6. Turquoia

    Turquoia New Member

    I say the book is always better than the movie. An author has to include all the details in the book so that the reader can comprehend and "picture" what is happening. On the other hand, a movie has to pack the events of a few days, weeks, months, ( or even years), into a time frame of one and a half to three and a half hours.
  7. B. A. Speegle

    B. A. Speegle New Member

    The book usually outshines the movie version. For example, The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M Auel is a fantastic book full of imagery, history and detail. The movie, starring Daryl Hannah, was confusing because the book could not translate to film and remain comprehensable. Janet Evanovich's One for the Money also disappointed fans in the movie theater.

    Without knowing what the main characters think and feel, the movie falls short of the book each time.
  8. Dillon Hinojos

    Dillon Hinojos New Member

    The book is usually better than the movie, but there is a rare case that the movie is in fact better than its origin. My favorite example of this is The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I read the book, and fell in love with the characters and the story, and knowing that I enjoyed the book so much, I did not expect much from the movie. Little did I know that the movie would not only invoke the same emotions as the book, but it would bring to life the story I love better than I could have imagined.
    DeJanelle Secrease likes this.
  9. snowwhitehair

    snowwhitehair New Member

    As an avid reader, I do tend to prefer a book over its movie. However, by themselves, movies do tend to be very well done. Because a movie is based off of a book, little inaccuracies with things like casting and sequencing of events tend to put people off from the movies.
  10. kush choudhary

    kush choudhary New Member

    Actually I am in love with movies. So, I think a movie is always better than a book. Because movies can visually help you understand our current economic conditions. And the major problem with book is, we can't see the emotions of the writer and also they are time consuming too.
  11. Kelso27

    Kelso27 New Member

    YES! The book is always better than the movie, because the book is able to go more in-depth with the characters. Movie can't do this because then they would be 3+ hours long and most people won't watch movies that long. Another reason why the book is better is because you get to visualize what everything/everyone looks like in your head, so when the movie comes out most times it won't live up to what you pictured in your head as you read the book!
  12. karadawn

    karadawn New Member

    Yes, usually the book is way better than the movie. I've seen some truly awful movies that just didn't even come close to the book. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest comes to mind. A few Stephen King books translated pretty well, like The Green Mile. Even though they changed a few minor details, they held pretty true to the meaning and events of the book. I noticed some scenes were word for word even, which was pretty cool.
  13. Chris Barnard

    Chris Barnard New Member

    I hear what everyone is saying. I think a good team is entirely capable of making a great movie out of a great book. the previous mentions in this thread are pretty good, but the discussion really boils down to how the book is translated. Fact: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Hunger Games (Part 2!!) etc are very good remakes of very different types of books. The Clan of the Cave Bear was an amazing book, but the movie was so bad, it still upsets me when I think about it. Total butchery of a great book. At the other end of the spectrum, I think that while The English Patient was a fantastic read, the movie by Anthony Minghella, surpassed it - it was a a thing of utter beauty (and art, at least for me, is mainly about finding true beauty) and an example of perfect film-making. Of course, sometimes you have an utterly atrocious book and the screenwriter and the director completely change direction, and loosely base their film on the book and produce something that is quite passable. I can't think of any examples right now, but I know I have seen some. Can anyone think of any?
  14. SoniaIonescu

    SoniaIonescu New Member

    I personally think Game of Thrones is actually better on-screen than on paper. They add up lots of spicy details and scenes, and you can also see Dany's dragons, which is pure awesomeness. In fact, do not generalize that the book is always better than the movie or vice versa. It's all about preferences.
  15. Debi Davies

    Debi Davies New Member

    My name is Debi and I am a bookworm. ;) In all honesty, I believe the books are always better. When you read, you have the chance to make the book more personal. You can interpret the setting in a way that means something to you. I read all of Harry Potter books and had more fun imagining the settings in my mind than watching someone else's interpretation. I've experienced the same with numerous books that were adapted for the big screen.

    My son read the "Hunger Games" before he saw the movie. After he saw it, he said the book was better. I have to admit, I was proud of him.
  16. alma77

    alma77 Member

    FOr me i better choose movies. I think a movie is always better than a book. Because movies can visually help you understand our current economic conditions. And the major problem with book is, we can't see the emotions of the writer and also they are time consuming too.i sometimes feel boared in reading coz reading is not my hobby i fall asleep sometimes, while reading and forget what page i am my mind gone>>>
  17. Avada Kedavra

    Avada Kedavra New Member

    Books and Movies are often compared to a floating iceberg in a body of water, where the movies are the visible upper part of the iceberg and the books as the part underwater which about 3/4 of the iceberg. This is often true as most of us know. But the Harry Potter Movies were almost as good as the book though they skipped many parts. So I guess everything depends on how the characters portrayed the characters from the book.
  18. Isabel Enriques

    Isabel Enriques New Member

    Basically, a book and a movie has the same plot, introduction, climax, and end. I think it all boils down to a person's preference. If they respond better to visual stimulus then they would appreciate movies more than reading texts on a piece of paper. On the other hand, if a person's imagination goes beyond the images on a screen then the story or plot will register better.
  19. mnidl

    mnidl New Member

    I wouldn't say unequivocally that the book is always better than the movie, but I do think that movie adaptations are rarely better than their book counterparts. It's not hard to see why, as most books are created with solely that medium in mind and not with the expectation that they will eventually be translated into a screenplay. In particular, book elements such as vivid descriptions and internal monologue are a challenge to properly convey in film. As a result, movie adaptations end up failing to capture all of the depth and detail that readers experienced when going through the novel.
  20. xxxiamjc

    xxxiamjc New Member

    As a reader and a fan of movies as well, I think that this differs through a person's opinion. I think the reason why people are disappointed with the movie version of the book is that their imagination reached far more than what it looked like in the movie itself. If the movie failed to execute the reader's expectation, then it will be a total disappointment. In reading a book, every single person has different perceptions and visualizations of what is going on in the story. A single sentence could be interpreted in many ways, therefore bringing another meaning in mind. In the movies, they are putting the same input in the mind of the viewers. Although they used the same story, hours of watching a movie cannot replace the weeks or even days reading a book. As a fan of both ways, I guess the battle here would be between the people who like it straightforward and precise and the people who like it more dimensional and imaginative. Movies are good too, but as I have to drop it, I guess books are better.
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2014
    velma.ocampo and m0njaaa like this.
  21. Winta

    Winta New Member

    I like movies because they are more enjoyable and they do not require as much time. And you can watch the movies with your acquaintances. And it is a great deal more comfortable to see. They are just so much better. They are also a good deal cheaper than books. Books can be very expensive.
  22. ebsanandres

    ebsanandres New Member

    I agree with you, most of the movies that is based on books was mostly disappointing.
    I have read The Da Vinci Code, The Bourne Series, Twilight Saga, The Hunger Games and I find
    it more exciting in the book rather than their movie counterpart.
  23. Kidly

    Kidly New Member

    For me , the books are always better than the movies.
    Let's take an example : Game of Thrones. It's not a movie , but it's really close. I read the whole collection , written by George R.R. Martin , and it was an absolute pleasure. His way of writing , his sense of humor are two things that we don't really find in the TV show. I'm not saying that the TV show is bad , but the books are 10 times better . The only good thing about the TV show is that you don't have to spend hours and hours of reading for 1 season ( 1 volume is about 800 pages ) .
  24. cloudhaacker

    cloudhaacker New Member

    Hey Guys, I've been an avid reader since I was probably about 4 or 5, and I'm in my 30's now. I can't completely agree with the idea that books are always better - but it's right about 90% of the time. One movie I watched that I really loved was "Let Me In", so when I found the book the movie was based on, I snatched it up. It was actually really hard for me to finish because it just wasn't as good - the movie changed very big parts of the story, but in my opinion those changes were all for the better. Another of my all time favorite movies is "The Princess Bride", and, again, the movie was so much better than the book. I read the abridged version - and what I think is kind of funny is that the guy who abridged the book prefaced each chapter with why and what he cut. The movie actually used his notes and cuts to make it better! But I usually do prefer the book if I can read it. It's fun to see others opinions, I don't have a lot of friends who are readers too!
  25. Alicia D'Aversa

    Alicia D'Aversa New Member

    I think books are always better than movies generally because you have the ability to imagine things as you want and get a lot more detail. Movies often have to cut a lot down and only put in what they want, which is technically their own right. What I do enjoy about film is that you have the pleasure of seeing the characters you love come to life. However as a general basis I prefer books, a lot of movies that were once books have disappointed me. On the other hand, once and a while you get movies that are better than books such as Lord of the Rings.
  26. sarahdurbandd

    sarahdurbandd New Member

    I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that the book is always better than the movie, it's just different. Books can be an unlimited amount of pages. Movies obviously have a time restraint. If we could fit everything into the movie that was in the book, than maybe fans would be happier. From my experience, I would say that yes, books do tend to be better because they are more descriptive.
  27. ChrisGr1

    ChrisGr1 New Member

    I'm of the opinion that comparing a book to its movie adaptation is, quite frankly, a waste of time and an almost an insult to everyone involved. While there is no argument that one is based off the other, in the end they're two completely different works of art and should be judged on their own merits. Want something close to the book? Well, then, the book is right there waiting for you. As both are structured differently, little deviations from plot, character, setting, and tone should not only be expected, but also embraced. Without Hollywood taking liberties with a written work, we wouldn't have such cinematic classics as To Kill A Mockingbird (which is much better than the book), Blade Runner, or Breakfast at Tiffany's (in this case, the novella was better but it doesn't come close to being as big as the movie was).
  28. SweetPoetry77

    SweetPoetry77 New Member

    Good afternoon Loopers! I have to says as an avid reader I have to read the book first before I see the movie because movies usually leave you wanting more while books give the beginning, middle, end, and the extra stuff that the movie leaves out. Movies have to trim down the really good stuff so I find myself from time to time going back and reading the book to what was edited out of the movie. Now I will watch a based on true story movie even if it doesn't have a book out because those movies are based on the prospective and life issues of real people which makes the movie a better watch because you can guess what happens next and be completely wrong but still want to watch the movie to see how it ends. However, I guess it really depends on the preference of the individual that determines whether they like the movie or the book better yet there have been some movies that were better than their books.
  29. n4rk92

    n4rk92 New Member

    Like most previous posters, I would have to agree that books are usually better than movies. One cannot compare the depth of descriptions that are in books that take several days or weeks to read with films that last three hours at most. Some films do a great job capturing the themes and portrayals of books, yet they still lack that deep connection that the reader sometimes makes with the characters.
    On the other hand, I'd like to know the community's opinion of movies that spawned books after their creation (i.e. Star Wars Saga). Star Wars is the only film that I am aware of that was first created as a film, and later became a collection of books. I think that it is very remarkable that someone created a movie script of a world before the books were written. Comments?
  30. AutumnBreeze

    AutumnBreeze New Member

    Okay, I'm going to take this question literally, which will probably annoy some people, and I apologize in advance for that. However, I want to point out that by using the word always in the question, it can never be true. This question is asking for our opinions on something. As such, not everyone will agree. Each person will have their own opinion on whether a book is usually better than a movie or vice versa. A better question would have been something like this: Do you tend to find the book better or the movie better and have there ever been an exception for this? Sorry, but I really wanted to get that off my chest. :devil:

Share This Page