Is the book always better than the movie?

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

  1. Meganshalifoe

    Meganshalifoe New Member

    I personally think that books are better than the movies. The books have more details than the movies. I thought that the movies and books of the Harry Potter series were both fansinating and entertaining.
     
  2. Dalani

    Dalani New Member

    It depends. Usually for me personally the book is always better than the movie. Mostly because I tend to have a very vivid open imagination and I like to see what Isee in my mind what im getting from the book rather than what's being put on the screen. The book for me has more details and gives you a better understanding than if you were just to watch the movie & not read the book.
     
  3. zhengs

    zhengs New Member

    I'm not a huge fan of books; I like watching things with my own eyes on a screen, and the visual effects are fascinating to me. In movies, your favorite actors and actresses are brought together and they take much less time.

    Books take several hours to read which brings me to my conclusion: Books are better than the movies.

    Personally, I get emotionally attached to characters in movies. If I were in a movie theatre and I was watching Harry Potter, I would only get to see him for 2 hours. If I were reading the Harry Potter book, I'd be able to read about him for days and days.
     
  4. Larson15

    Larson15 New Member

    I love reading as well. There have been some movies that have been made very well and I have enjoyed watching after the book, such as Hunger Games and Divergent as well. Most of the time I am very disappointed in the movie after reading the book though. Even movies I have enjoyed I have been upset because they have left something out from the book that I thought was important. I would much rather read the book than watch the movie because there is so much more detail and it's fun to let your imagination create images.
     
  5. Elisabeth Hogan

    Elisabeth Hogan New Member

    I like to seperate the movies from the books they are based off of. It's easier to not get disappointed. I will always vote for the books. There are more details, it was the original story, and you can really connect better, and live in the story. I think my favorite book turned movie, well series, is Harry Potter. The actors were perfect, and they stuck close to the story, while trying to turn it into a movie.
     
  6. Korinna Martin

    Korinna Martin New Member

    Personally I have never watched a movie that was better that the book. Some came close to being even, but there is always so much that movie have to leave out. And I get kind of upset when things don't look the way in the movie as I had imaged it.
     
  7. overdrive123

    overdrive123 New Member

    I read picture books all the way through. Obviously much of this is personal preference, but I have probably read 3-4 for every movie I've watched, and a good book will kick a movie's a** any day of the week. First of all, as has been mentioned before books, let your mind fill in many of the blanks, which is always more satisfying than having something made explicit. That's why movies where you never see the bad guy are the scariest. Second, books can give you more bang for your buck. Not only are they cheaper, because they take longer to get through you get more out of them. Not to mention that I've read some books probably a dozen times. Third, I think that books have a greater capacity to inspire change and convey a point of view. Don't get me wrong, I love movies and think that they can be very powerful (e.g. Shawshank Redemption) but when it comes to attempting to argue a point or present a coherent and comprehensive array of facts, it's tough to trump a book. In addition, because the cost of writing a book is essentially nothing, it's a much more convenient option for people around the world, while movies generally cost millions of dollars, and therefore are more bound by market forces. Of course books are supposed to make money, but I think there is more creative space while writing a book, than there is while making a movie which has the studio and producers and market analysts all breathing down the director's neck, trying to make it more "commercial". Movies are a more complex animal than most books, but when it comes to telling a story, and having compelling characters I still have to go with books. Movies have actors pretending to be characters. Books just have the characters themselves, and a good book will suck you in and for a few hours I swear they can make it seem like you don't even live on planet earth.
     
  8. TeeZee

    TeeZee New Member

    I love reading and I love movies, but I will say on a personal level that a book is better. Movies always get edited and there are some great scenes in the book that get left out of the movie. I find this aggravating and feel that this takes away from what the author of the book wrote. If you are going to make a movie out of a book, try to stay as close to the book information as possible. For me, a book every time.
     
  9. ALyssa Hart

    ALyssa Hart New Member

    I say sometimes the book is better than the movie. The movie itself gives us a visual of what the book is saying with the different descriptions, but sometimes the movie doesn't capture all there is. The book is better.
     
  10. aharriscc48

    aharriscc48 New Member

    I have found that in most cases that the book is always better than the movie that it represents. The Harry Potter series is a good example of this fact. Although in defense of the movies, it is almost impossible not to leave out details in the movie that are in the book. I think that the screen writer tries to encapsulate the main ideas or themes in the movies to save time.
     
  11. Chloejacque

    Chloejacque New Member

    I believe that it truly depends on the person, and whether or not that person can accept the fact that the movie will, no matter what, differ than the book in more way than one. The movie always seems to change, the person may enjoy the storyline of the movie over the storyline of the book.
     
  12. ashleydageek

    ashleydageek New Member

    Not always but typically, yes. Books tend to give the reader specifics and more fill-ins to make the book more realistic whereas movies are mostly the main points of the story and sometimes skip a very emotional or vivid part of the book. For instance in the Hunger Games series in one part Katniss has a friend who gives her the mockingjay pin and near the end of the series you can feel the loss of hope as the friend dies once the capital do away with District 12; in the movie the friend is nonexistent and so the emotional impact is so dimmed that the fact that Katniss's home was destroyed seems nearly just a filler.
     
  13. foxy brown

    foxy brown New Member

    I strongly agree that the books is better than the movies. It's really disappointing in reality but it has been proven on numerous scenarios,take into consideration a vivid reader not only reading a novel but can see all the actions that are taking place as though you are seeing it with your naked eyes but when brought to the eyes in the form of a action or live play the picture that has been created in our minds are incapable to see and the morals that are brought across are depleted.The directors aren't doing the authors any" Justice" the books are way better than the movies.
     
  14. stanley

    stanley New Member

    As a more committed reader than movie goer my first response to the question is : "movies of books almost always disappoint in terms of plot fidelity, casting, and character development." I had a strange surprise a couple of years ago, however, when my girlfriend and I decided to go to a movie without even checking the reviews or even the titles of what was playing. We dropped in, looked at the posters, and bought our tickets. I don't remember the name of the movie, even, but ten minutes into the thing I noticed something very familiar about the plot and premise. "Hey, we read this novel, didn't we?" My girlfriend and I have over the years read a multitude of novels out loud to one another. It's our chief form of entertainment. (It's hell to get old.) Anyway, we recognized the story about a near destitute young woman who out of desperation goes to work for a bail bondsman to track down and bring back for trial various felons and dead beats. As a bounty hunter she is a rank amateur, of course, but she's shrewd, brave, and innovative and actually gets her man on more than one occasion. She gets in way over her head, of course, and appeals to an old flame who has all but forgotten her. (High school fling.) Her old flame is now a womanizing private detective former cop. The narrative fun includes his attempts to avoid her, her attempts to recruit him as a reluctant partner, violent, but not lethal encounters with local hoodlums, and, of course, both characters' resistance to their inevitable mutual attraction revived after fifteen years. It was not a great story in book form, just mildly entertaining and quite forgettable. As a movie it was quite a bit more fun, and to my great surprise entirely faithful to the plot and character developments of the novel. The novel was only mediocre. The movie, because it had the advantage of cinematographic eye candy, music, explosions versus descriptions of explosions, and all the other stuff a good production offers was better as entertainment than the novel from which it came. My book bias remains, but there is always the chance for a movie to surpass its novel of origin.
     
  15. R3GUL8TR

    R3GUL8TR New Member

    Nine times out of ten I would agree that a book goes into far more detail than a movie ever could. The intricate descriptions involved in the location or characters mental state cannot be duplicated in movies unless they are willing to go beyond the 2hr norm. Of all the movies I've seen where there was a book version, I could agree that the movie left out some minor (and sometimes major) details in the interest of time.
     
  16. abo abdrhman

    abo abdrhman New Member

    Some time book is better then a movie...Movie has fun in it....But book have feeling in It
     
  17. pushkar84

    pushkar84 New Member

    I'm addicted to reading and it would be quite natural for me to tilt my preference towards books. But I don't see myself siding with the majority perception of the book being 'always' better than the movie.

    Books are definitely great at involving the target person. The reader spends a significant time (hours, days, months) in a book whereas the movie-watcher usually gets only a couple of hours witnessing the action unfold.

    However, two movies have outdone the books that they were based on. The first one is 'The Shining'. The visuals, the acting and the cinematography were so well done, that Stephen King's phenomenal book is left behind in making an impact. The second one is 'Fight Club'. The whole psychothriller aspect of the plot is captured exceptionally well by the movie.
     
  18. Colm Mulligan

    Colm Mulligan New Member

    In my opinion it depends on how you (the reader) interprets the novel. When reading, you automatically imagine the different characters appearances and personalities which will be more than likely unique when compared to others opinions of characters. With this in mind, when you watch a movie after reading a novel, you are viewing the opinons and thoughts of the characters through someone elses eyes. If the characters you invisaged when reading the novel are similar to the characters portrayed in the film more than likely you will enjoy the film. However if they differ significantly you will find the movie poor as it isn't what you orginally thought it to be portrayed. To answer the question fully, I believe the novel is always better than the book as it is how you want to see it.
     
  19. Persa

    Persa New Member

    I love reading and will read almost every genre. I get so disappointed when the movie isn't what I pictured, but I think it's even worse when I read a book after seeing the movie because they might cut out parts of the book (to save time and money etc) and it's just not the same. But I firmly believe that 9 times out of 10 the book was better
     
  20. LaurenMcGaha

    LaurenMcGaha New Member

    I think that they both are equally wonderful. The book normally goes more in depth and gives the reader a better description, but a movie brings images and life to books which is wonderful especially for people who are primarily vision learners. Although movies show great visual representation, they often leave so much information out. Therefore, I think I have to go with books being the better choice here. Definitely a tough decision though in my mind.
     
  21. MakeupDiva

    MakeupDiva New Member

    Yes! That's why I waited to read the Harry Potter books until I saw all the movies. The movie never captures the book the way I want it to. If it were up to me, the movies would be 4-5 hours long because I'd want a lot of the book details in it lol.
     
  22. mckinney

    mckinney New Member

    Hi. I did not read the hunger games but thought it was a great movie with a lot of action. I have read the Da Vinci Code and seen the movie. I thought the movie was a whole lot better than the book.
     
  23. mckinney

    mckinney New Member

    you would have to make the film into a total of three hour film. Sometimes when the book is written into a screenplay
    words maybe left out or even chapters of the book. Like you have said all details will not fit into the movie.
     
  24. BurlapMap

    BurlapMap New Member

    The book is always different than the movie, but that doesn't mean its better. There are benefits that a movie has over a book--it's a visual medium. The ability to show rather than to tell is a powerful one. That's why I want to see some of my favorite books made into films.

    Movies that are worse than the book are those movies that lose sight of that point. Movies that rely on narration, for example. Narration is for books, not movies, and if the best a filmmaker can do when re-envisioning the book is to have somebody read it, they're doing a terrible job at making movies. For example, for all its problems, in Twilight: New Moon, the camera shot of Bella staring out of her window as the months passed by was wonderful. It was a great way to visually represent something that was narratively conveyed in the book. It didn't need narration. On the other hand, Twilight had a terrible habit of shoving narration into places it didn't belong, ruining the pacing of the movie.

    Books that rely more on discussions of events or the internal thoughts of characters make terrible movies. There's nothing to show! That said, pretty much every movie I've seen from a book I enjoyed was a positive experience. Not better than the book, not worse than the book, just different from the book.

    What I really want is more full-cast audiobooks. To me, those are better than books or movies. They bring life to the characters and the events, sacrificing none of the content. I really wish they were made more commonly than they are.
     
  25. mckinney

    mckinney New Member

    I loved the book Gone with the Wind. Yes the book was very long to read. The movie told the story of a man and woman who truly loved each other. Scarlet was just selfish always wanting her own way in everything. One major thing I like about the Rhett Butler character was he did not take her crap nor her foolishness. Rhett stood up to her and because of
    being self- center was one of the reasons why Rhett left her in the last scene of the movie.
     
  26. Tanishaw

    Tanishaw New Member

    I have heard many times that the book is always better than the movie but, I disagree. I love to read and often love to cuddle up in bed with a good book , however, because I enjoy what is visual I would much rather watch the movie form of the story. Movies are more exciting for me because a book can only say so much about the characters involved but a movie brings them to life. The details are more vivid in movies where I can actually see that a character is angry or dancing as opposed to trying to imagine in my head what their action looks like. I want to know if Forest Gump was really as challenged as the author of the book says and I just feel that I could gain a better understanding by watching the actual movie. Books take weeks and maybe even months to read and for the person that is on a tight schedule it just seems more practical to catch a movie at the theater.
     
  27. ana22

    ana22 New Member

    Most of the time it is. There are just too many elements that cannot be translated to a 2 hour film. The movie can be good, excellent even, but the book is just better. The LOTR books is a prime example of this. However, there are also films that not only did a good adaptation of the book, but actually did a better job of telling the story. A good example of this is fight club and the author even agrees.
     
  28. petec33

    petec33 New Member

    I would definitely agree that the book is always better than the movie. Hollywood has yet to catch up with my imagination. You really get all the juicy details the author is trying to convey in the book version. Whereas in the movie, it might only be a few seconds of film that flash before your eyes which can never compare to the true art of storytelling.
     
  29. daniro85

    daniro85 New Member

    The book is not ALWAYS better than the movie. Of course, the matter of opinion will vary depending on ones own taste in books and movies. The most recent example that comes to mind is Dan Browns Inferno versus Ron Howard's film adaption. Brown is known for sidestepping the narrative to enrich the readers with history regarding a particular piece of art, symbol or person. I happened to enjoy those parts of his books although it does mess with the fast-paced nature that should come with the story.
    Ron Howard makes significant changes to his film version of Inferno, streamlining the story to better fit the thriller genre and making the "down-to-the-wire" predicament Langdon finds himself in to be more believable. I think Howards choices made for a far better movie experience when compared to the more convoluted narrative Brown offers in his own story.
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2018
  30. Dark_Prince

    Dark_Prince New Member

    I think not at all even some of the movies are horrible. There is an angle for me that movies are better than the books because they add the real life of what is written in the books. If we are talking about the book that focus in giving the knowledge we need then no doubt that it is better than the movies because knowledge is more important than entertainment. But if we are referring to adventure, novel, fiction or suspense types of book to compare it with the movies then I think movies are better than the books because we don't need to read to entertain ourselves because all of we need to do when it comes to movies is to watch.
    So for me, it is not a good idea to compare the books and movies because they are very different in anyways. Maybe we can compare both kind of books and both kind of movies but we can't compare the two to each other.
     

Share This Page