Book or film: which is better?
Photo by be OH be
Last weekend the movie “The Lovely Bones” opened nationwide in the United States. The movie, based on the novel by Alice Sebold is just one of many book-to-film adaptations to come for 2010.
Also on the docket for 2010 is Tim Burton’s version of Alice in Wonderland; The Twilight Saga: Eclipse; and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I.
With so many popular novels being converted into what will surely be popular films, we wondered: what are some of your favorite (and, conversely, least favorite) film adaptations of literary classics? And, is it true that the book is always better than the movie, or, are there any versions of the movie that are actually better than the book?
Be sure to tell us in the comments section below!
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Rating:
(17 votes, average: 4.41) - Permalink
- Comments (166)
Loading ...
Subscribe
For the most part it seems older movies from the 1930s and earlier do a better job of staying close to the novels than modern movies. However even book adaptions of movie often have much more to them than the movie.
the books are ALWAYS 100% of the time better.me times the movies leave out a lot of parts of the story.
Really I have to agree with the old belief that the book is always better than the movie. Books leave so much more room for personal interpretation, everyone who reads a book pictures everything slightly different and when the movie comes out and it isn’t the way you pictured it, it can be very dissapointing. Also there is so much more room for things to happen in books, while movies must happen within a 2-3 hour time period.
My favorite movie adaptions would have to be The Lord of The Rings Trilogy. Although they were not even a touch on the books they are absolutely amazing movies, as seen by their many awards.
Least favorite book/movie adaptation was Eragon. The Eragon movie was absolute garbage, it did not hold to the story line at all, the acting was mediocre, sets were not very well done, and the story line was never explained.
Whichever came FIRST. The things that make a good book don’t translate well to the screen. The things that make a good movie don’t translate well to the page.
I would think the book is better, because with the book it has more details and you can get lost in it. With the movie it basically reviewing everything you read.
That depends. If it is mainly focused on a story, character building etc. then definitely the book. However when you look at books with massive scenes and locations that are hard to portray using only words, (lotr, star wars) then I would have to say films. A lot of it depends on the presentation, writers and a producer.
For the most part I think books are way better then movies. The first three harry potter movies are great but they hold nothing to the books. And the movies get less interesting as they go on where the books just get better. I was dissapointed with the first twilight movie. I love the books and was looking forward to it only to be dissapointed. Another example of a book being hacked into a movie is the lemmony snicket series. The books are about these extrodinary kids where in the movie they just seem like average kids. The only time I have enjoyed “watching” a book more than reading it is actually a tv series. I thot the vampire diaries where terrible books (altho all other books by same author seem to be great) I finally gave in and wached the tv show and was impressed…. so to sum up my mile long post here, I love books way better than movies.. even when its a great movie
Books I would like to see be movies;
City of bones series
Warrior heir series
Wicked lovely
Lips touch three time
Need and captivate
And the marked vampire series….
The best film adaptation of a book I’ve ever seen is “Lonesome Dove”. I’m sure it’s because it’s a miniseries rather than a theatrical movie, but it was almost an exact retelling of the book. Worst adaptation of a book has to be “Sahara”. Clive Cussler is one of my favorite authors and this is my favorite book he ever wrote, but the movie was terrible. Really made me mad, I’d been looking forward to it for about a year and it was a huge disappointment.
one of my favorites is “the outsiders”, based on the book of the same name by s.e. hinton. that movie has a great cast, and was just overall awesome.
one of my least favorites was “eragon” based on the book by christopher paolini. that book was pretty good, but that movie was just painful. lol
they’re are multiple others that i could add to both lists, but i don’t feel like writing forever. lol
I think that books are better than movies because especially with books like Harry Potter and Twilight, in order to keep an audience, moves can’t be but so long. The average person doesn’t want to sit in a movie for more than 2 hours, but that requires a lot of stuff to be cut out of a movie. Im excited that they decided to make Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2 movies, because that solves some of those issues.
Books are better because you can use your imagination and explore your mind….PLUS more details!
For the most part I agree that books are better than the movies but I find with certain classic novels like Sense and Sensibility, I enjoy the movie more. There are still so many books that I’ve read I’d love to see turn into a movie but at the same time I know it’ll be nowhere near as good o.o
I find well written books to be much better than the movies. My imagination can come up with much better special effects than they normally put into movies.
If a book is poorly written, then the movie seldom follows it very closely and so the movie can be much better than the 10, 20, or 50 pages I read before throwing the book away.
I do like movies because they are visually stunning and I never thought I would be abele to focus long enough to read a book until a year ago when I got sucked into the Harry Potter series. Since then I am reading a new book every month of all genres and I just finished “The Shining” and I get so involved that I lose track of time. I recommend everyone try to read a book, especially the book of your favorite movie and see how vivid your imagination can be.
Books, in my opinion, are much better. In books you get the bigger picture, you understand how the character works and you see why they do things you that otherwise wouldn’t make sense to you. You can miss details in a movie so easily, and not many people can judge whats going on behind the scenes by looking at them. Any one can see, but not all people can read, alough that is true, You do need to be able to read for many jobs. It’s challenging to the mind to read, and helps calm you down. All in all, i think you gain more by reading.
The books are almost aLwAyS better than the films or movies. The book has more detail, and you get to use your own imagination to think up what the characters look like and what everything looks like. Movies or films, you just have it layed out for you… your mind isn’t be put to good use of imagination.
I always prefer the book. To me the movies always leave out the best or most important part. Eragon was probably my least favorite movie adaption. I love the book, but the movie butchered it.
I think that reading the book is ten times better than seeing the movie. Movies tend to be made based somewhat on the books with little to nothing in them that is like the book. There are a few that do keep the main points of the story but few that actually capture what the story is about or its lesson.
Most films need to tighten up and package their stories
into tidy parcels that omit some details
that the text version retains
Avitar is one of the obly films for which there is no text book for
better to read the story then see the directors interpretation of the story they read
then compare
The book usually.
However, there are exceptions, like “1984.” Michael Radford did Orwell justice in his film adaptation. The story looked exactly as I had always pictured it.
One of my favourites would be LOTR and I thought TLB was done quite well, but not absolutely amazing.
I hope Tomorrow When The War Began is good, because the books were amazing.
When I read a book, I can use my imagination. When i watch a movie, I use someone else’s imagination…
I would like to see a movie made for, The Foundation Trilogy.
Like; Tale of Two Cities book n movie..
Dislike the latest version of , The Man In The Iron mask..
The book is always better for me because I’m a total nerd and films sometimes cut out the good things in the book. But if I’m lazy, I’ll watch the movie first and then read the books. Like the movie the Series of Unfortunate events. I watch the movies first and found that it was really blah and silly, whereas the book let me envision what it must be to be an orphan.
My favourite movie of all time is Jaws. Comedian Jon Caparullo said it best, “Oh, yeah, the movie sucks, it has a 25- foot mechanical shark, an explosion, but the book has PAGES!”
The book’s are always better than the movie.
The one movie that I felt actually did some justice to the book was the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Many may disagree with me, but thats just how I see it.
Possibly “Where the Wild Things Are” film pwns the book, but just because the book has less than like, 10 words, doesn’t mean they have a deeper meaning than the film.
The thing is, with a book, you can imagine it the way you want it to be. With a film, its set in stone for you, and you may not like what you see.
The only film adaptations I’ve really liked:
The Princess Bride
The Andromenda Strain (NOT the godawful TV miniseries)
The Lord of the Rings (Yeah, they chopped it up, but I suppose it was necessary)
A Clockwork Orange
I’m dreading what they might be doing to Neuromancer. It’s one of my favorites.
Fight Club and The Dead Poet’s Society are both films that make a seamless adaptation which doesn’t detract from the experience, rather compresses it into a short 2-hour span where reading takes longer. I’m a personal fan of films myself, I guess it depends on your situation. Reading is not for people like me who have tons of homework and have to work, but films don’t take too long.
I hated the sixth Harry Potter movie, it was nothing like the book and some of it was basically made up
I HATE;
The Chronicles of Narnia
The Tale of Desperaux
Twilight (all of them, I hate the book series too)
The Lovely Bones
Books are generally better than their movie counterparts.
In my opinion, the only time where the movie was a lot better than the book was with “Forest Gump”
Horrible book. Great movie.
Every other time, the book was better than the movie.
While I’m a great fan of movies, I would have to say that when a book is converted into a film, the book is always far better. I think that with a book, the story has a chance to build on you and become part of your life. Because whenever you go to a movie based on your favorite book you always say: “Yeah, it was good, but they left out my favorite part.” That’s because it’s impossible to cram the greatness of hundreds of pages into two hours worth of moving pictures.
I’ve watched many books to movies, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and even Twilight unforchunatly. Harry Potter was good up until the 4th movie and up, them books are way better than the movies because the movies miss so much good stuff. The latest Half Blood Prince was a mega dissapointment if you read the book first. As for Twilight, I loved the books, and then the movies turn it into a girl phenomenon, and the books were not near as Chick Flicky as the moves were. Lord of the Rings were by far the best follwed, but as many seen, that makes for 5 hour long movies, which unforchunatly doesn’t attract Moviegoers.
Favourite: Fight Club, Sleepy Hollow (with Johnny Depp)
Least Favourite: The Great Gatsby.
For me it’s almost always book over movie. The only time I have been completely satisfied with a movie based on a book was The Time Travelers Wife. Me and my friends who’ve read the book all agree it stayed very true to the book while being a great movie as well. The adaptation I least liked was The Princess Diaries. The book was great and the movie changed too much in my opinion. Plus, the sequel had nothing to do with the books at all.
I think the older the book is, the better it looks on the big screen, however, the movies do not really follow the book that much, it is only meant to be an illusion of the book, and it is exactly what they are, descriptions are way out of hand and lines are a bit too changed for my liking, however I will always watch the movie before reading the book, as once you read the book, the movie just seems less interesting
i personally like the books better because you can imagine how the characters look and everything. when you watch the movies, they are never anything like the books. they leave out way too much on everything movie i’ve seen that was a book first. in some cases, like Tuck Everlasting. The book was good, but the movie was much better. I’m a die hard Harry Potter fan, so I can be the first to tell you that the books are way better. as for twilight… no comment.
Books are always better than movies in my opinion. In books, we create the ideal character to play the part. In a book, we get the whole story. In most movies from books, we only get part of the story. Especially in series based books turned movies.
Books are usually better than movies because they engage your brain more.
Books successfully made into movies include the Megan Follows version of Anne of Green Gables. While they had to combine several of the books into three movies, they generally stuck true to the books.
Book poorly translated into a movie was the Pelican Brief. The whole premise of the book was this missing document . . . a written document . . . that just didn’t play out well on a movie screen.
I pretty much hate almost all of the books that have been made into movies in the last three years. They’re all butchered. But the book is always better than the movie. But like someone else said, if a movie is written into a book, its not as good. So whatever comes first is always best.
The book is always better. Always.
But they’re making one of my favourite books into a movie, its supposed to come out sometime this year, and I’m absolutely dreading it, because I know it’ll suck. I’ll be thrilled if it doesn’t, but I know it will. I already disagree with who they picked to be the main character. Don’t get me wrong, I like Freddie Highmore, I just think he’s a terrible choice for this character. Its The Beautiful Miscelaneous if you want to google it or something.
Also, my most hated movie adaption ever would have to be Blood and Chocolate. It was basically NOTHING like the book. Everything but names was completely changed. Just terrible.
Good book always contains the right reference for greats film.
I agree with almost everybody in here –> books will always be the best, hands down! I suppose I can accept movies that chopped some parts (which btw could be vital) but I absolutely oppose movies that CHANGE the storyline…what the heck man?! If you don’t like the story, don’t convert it into a movie – period!
I prefer books. In books, it is complete with all the details you want to know and if you missed one scene or dialogue in the movie, you can always recheck it in the book and see it through your mind.
I love Twilight Saga books and the movie also, but I read the books instead.
Of course, a book is a better than a movie. You might be thinking of the reason. Let me tell you…
In movie we can not imagine the things our self. But in a book we can imagine and create the story in our own way. However, I like movies but I love books more.
Books are way better.
The worst book to movie i have ever seen is eragon. Shitest storyline ever, nothing like the book completetely leave out the Jeod (Teirm sub-story), and Farthern Dur was the worst set, and the battle was badly portrayed, Fox did a shit job.
Most times the book, I always remember watching 1984 after reading the book and was really disapointed with what was missed out of the story purely due to the description that was in abundance and was vital to the story
i think book is better than film.book is the best friend.it teaches u well manners,difference between good and bad and so on.
Books are almost ALWAYS better than the movies. Harry Potter movies are very good but still nothing compared to the books. Apparently the book The Host from Stephanie Meyer who wrote Twilight is supposed to be made into a film. The book is amazing but i don’t see how they can make it into a movie coz its very complicating. If it does come out I will watch it but i doubt it will be great but yet again i may be wrong and it could be amazing.
The Twilight books are MUCH better than the movies i think, the movies are ok but they don’t live up to the books very good tbh.
But I haven’t seen a good book turned into a really bad film yet so directors are doinmg something right
But books will always will be better because they have big descriptions that give you an amazing image but when you see the movie it looks wrong to you. And also there is a lot more content in books so there is much more to discover in them!!
my favourite movie adaptation would be wuthering heights (the 2009 version)….i didnt like the book until i watched the movie.
however, i LOVE the harry potter books, but i seriously hate the movies… they are so inaccurate.
Films are 99% of the time worse than the books.
In order to cut down budgets and length (can you imagine how long the 3hr LOTR films would be if Peter Jackson had kept exactly to the books?
I personally love the LOTR films, as despite the changes from the novels; the storyline is still believable, the characters are well developed and do develop and change throughout their journey, and it is accessible whether you read the books or not. Ok, so i pick up on the fact that Glorfindel and the twins (Elladan and Elrohir) are no longer major characters, but the use of Arwen was ok. (despite her stealing Asfaloth…)
Eragon by far has been the worst ever. There was minimal attention to even the most major details of the book: (RED SWORD,NOT BLUE!) and in general it was a waste of money and my time. Erago begins a 4 part saga, but after ssing this you can understand why Eldest and Brisingr have not been dramatised for film yet!
OMG, books are the best!!! But in movies, they change it
:(:(:):):):
I must say the book is always better when you pick up a book after a movie (never do that) you dont get to imagine the charectors….. you dont get to picture your self there! It’s an amazing adventure (a book) but in a movie there’s less detail and and less imagination!
defantly films i just find reading boring no affence to those people who do like it though its just not my thing
To be honest I prefer both, it just depends on what the content is about, how well it relates to me, how well the author/director entices you into the subject, style, also I’m a person who enjoys a well-written story line. Otherwise without one that doesn’t have a good story line, it’s rather boring.
I generally love the book and like the movie. Two exceptions: I reread the Chronicles of Narnia after seeing the movie and found it far more interesting. Apparently my first reading felt far more exciting than the second, years later and after seeing the movie.
2001, A Space Odyssey. I couldn’t figure out what the book was saying. It all came clear after seeing the movie.
I agree with changing the storyline totally and essentially just using the title and the “idea,” really sucks. I, Robot is a great example of this. The short story is great. TV adaptation is great. Movies?? Terrible. I love both the short story and Azimov’s collection which he didn’t want named the same as the short story by Eando Binder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_(short_story)
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKSSSSS ARE WAYYYYYYY BETTERRRRRRRRRRRR
i agree too… i prefer books! books let someone use their imagination… to imagine the events, happenings… unlike the movie, it’s already there… we don’t have the chance to imagine things we want to imagine for the part… of the movie or the book.
It depends in part on the book – ones with action tend to translate much better to the screen than more cerebral ones (especially ones with large amounts of internal introspection – always tough to do in an elegant way in a movie.)
One example that always comes to mind is Watership Down. One event in the book (battle with the rats) was only mentioned by a line or so describing their overall journey, but was expanded into an elaborate action sequence in the movie version.
i think books are always better because they were there first wheras when you turn them into movies most of the time things are changed and some bits are missed out. good examples of this are new moon and the vampires assistant where they have changed the story quite a bit which ruins the movie and makes that book/author look bad when in actual fact they are pretty good.
I have seen two movies (in nearly sixty years of watching) that actually improved on their sources. One was You’ll Like My Mother, in which a few small changes tightened the focus on the author’s theme of mothers protecting their children, and the other was a TV production of Mark Twain’s Pudd’nhead Wilson, in which the two added characters, a pair of slave traders, gave the story additional unity and personified the institution of slavery. In addition, the visting Italian twins who charmed the town turned out in the film to be a pair of frauds–a touch that I think Twain would even have liked, especially when someone mentioned that their act had been exposed in “St. Petersburg.”
Beyond those two, the best any film has done in that respect has been to adhere faithfully to its source. Roman Polanski has been especially scrupulous in doing so
(although I really liked what he did with the character of Ross, without adding or changing a word, in his production of Macbeth). Of course a major problem is cramming a full-length novel into two or even three or four hours. For that reason, the miniseries is a wonderful medium!
I like movies best because they are more entertaining, and can be finished quicker.
But Books usually are better than book movies as some information gets cut out
I answered a question the other day and went on about how books are turned into movies. I hate movie adaptations. I can’t stand them! Not only do directors leave out so much but they also feel the right to throw in whatever they please. There’s only been a couple adaptations I like, and those would be the Lord of the Rings movies and Gone with the Wind. Right now I find myself in love with The Time Traveler’s Wife. The movie? I will not watch that not even if it comes on a channel like Oxygen and there’s nothing else on. I do not want to ruin that book for myself.
Personally I think books are always better than movies. The narnia movies were both good, but not as good as the books.
Personally I think books are always better than movies. The narnia movies were both good, but not as good as the books. Then there’s the Nancy Drew movie. I loved the books, and the mystery in the movie was good, but the movie was just no. It couldn’t compare to the books.
V for Vendetta was better than the book. Take that, nerds.
For me, most of the time I like the book better. It’s just a fact, the book is almost always much much better. I don’t mind if they get rid of some scenes in books to move the pace of the movie, but today moviemakers just butcher the book(s). They add/remove characters, and put in whole scenes and plot twists that were never supposed to happen. So I don’t like that.
There has only ever been one case where I’ve loved the movie better than the book. That is The Notebook. I thought that the only emotion in the book was love, and I liked how the movie incorperated some bitterness and anger. More real, in my opinion.
One case that I really just can’t decide is Gone With the Wind. It’s my favourite book and movie but I just love them both so much. I think the movie adaptation was brilliant. The actors looked as if they were born to play the roles and they did so wonderfully. Sure, I wish some parts of the book were incorperated into the movie (Rhett’s separated little monologue at the end, for example. But I understand that some had to be cut out. It is a 1000+ page book, after all the movie is already four hours long.
So for me, in almost all cases the book is better. Because sometimes movie adaptations change the entire plot of the novel and that’s just insane. Why do a movie based on a book if you’re going to change everything? Ahem, ahem: Ella Enchanted (although I enjoyed both the book and the movie).
Favourite: Gone With the Wind, The Princess Bride. For the latter, it helped that Goldman wrote both the book and movie.
I think the absolute best adaptation I’ve personally ever seen would “Of Mice and Men” with with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich. They didn’t need a script, they had the book. Similarly the version of “A Christmas Carol” with Patrick Stewart simply added images to an already great story. I’m a bit of a Clancy fan, and the adaptation of “Hunt for Red October” was done well and made, I felt, appropriate compromises without destroying the story. OTOH “Sum of All Fears” was an absolute atrocity.
It depends. 98% of the time, the book is always better. For example, the book Misery was tons better than the movie. But then you have cases where the directors have put their own twists on things so the movies are different in their own respects, but still good, such as A Clockwork Orange and The Shining. In my opinion though, the movie versions of The Phantom of the Opera and Dracula (I’m talking the Francis Ford Coppolo version, which added a bit of romance to a classic tale) were better than the books. Also, the Vampire Diaries series by L.J. Smith is a lot better as a TV series (which is like a mini movie anyway, so I thought I’d bring that up).
In conclusion – books beat movies.
I only know of one that really gets to me. But I haven’t read any other books that are now movies. But the one book that was my favorite book, was Battlefield Earth. Best book ever, worst movie I think I’ve ever seen. If the other books are this much better than the movies, I need to read more books!
There are lots of movies that are better than the original books they are based on. Any badly written book with a good storyline that got turned into a movie by a decent screeplay writer, whether that’s the novelist or not, qualifies. Puzo’s The Godfather is the classic example. Dime-store novel, hyperbolic, silly and unconvincing on paper.
books are always going to be better than the movies. if any book you have read has been made into a movie you will agree with me. every time I watch a movie after reading the book I realize how much they left out!!! it’s just common sense, you can’t put all the information in a 500 page book (which takes a while to read) into a 2-4 hour movie.
If it was a book before it was a movie, then almost always the book will be better – unless of course the book sucked. (Last of the Mohicans, anyone?)
The big exception to this is those rare cases where the movie makes you enjoy reading a book which you couldn’t even manage to finish before seeing it brought to life. For example, when I first picked it up, I simply couldn’t finish reading LotR – I got terminally bored somewhere in the middle of Two Towers. However, after seeing the movies, I devoured the books, multiple times, and now I love love love Tolkien’s writing. In this case, even though the books are clearly better than the movies in terms of depth and language and poetry and feeling, this is true only because I’ve seen the movies. Without the movies, the books are simply overlong and pretentious and in desperate need of a good editor.
I also make a special exception for those movies that are in effect the illustrated edition of the book: e.g. Narnia and Harry Potter. In these cases, while the movies don’t really stand on their own, they add to your enjoyment of the book, kind of like the illustrated edition of Grimm’s Fairy Tales: not every scene can be illustrated, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any pictures.
Films make for a quick thrill, but a good book can stay with you forever. And while you are reading, it’s easy to let your mind run away with every chapter.
I think in general, the books are better than the movies. I am an obsessive Harry Potter fan, I’ve read all the books over and over again and loved them all, but find that the films are rubbish!! They aren’t a patch on the books!
On the other hand, my favourite films of all time are the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which are absolutely amazing! I prefer them to the books, even though I really enjoyed them to, because due to Tolkien’s style and use of language I find them quite heavy-going. But then again – I saw the films before I read the books, but it was the other way round with Harry Potter, so maybe it really depends on what we see/read and fall in love with first because that’s what provides our image of the characters and the plot – something that often we don’t want changed by viewing the same story in different media.
I have always felt like the books are much, much better than the movies. Not that the movies are bad or anything, most of them are pretty good, its just that a lot of detail is left out and that’s why the books are always better, you get the whole story, as for the movies, you only get most of the story or part of it.
So, my favorite movie that came from a book would be Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince, it was almost exactly the same as the book.
My least favorite movie would be the first Twilight movie. Don’t get me wrong, I love the books, the first movie didn’t quite turn out how I wanted it to be, though, New Moon was pretty good.
The books will always be better than the movies, no doubt.
I have an example of the book not being the best version of the story. I prefer the Broadway version of The Phantom of the Opera to the book. However, the movie version of the play doesn’t do the musical any justice.
Jim Gaffigan says it best.
“You ever watch a movie with someone that read the book? They’re so condescending. ‘Oh, the book was much better.’ Know what I liked about the movie? No reading. Only took two hours, then I could take a nap”
Films would be better in regard to entertainment.
Books would be better due to its completeness.
I loved a walk to remember, but the book was waay better. It captured more emotion and gave more details.
Almost always the book. A book can go into details a film can never do. One of the exceptions to that rule is The Godfather. The film is complete genius compared to the average writing abilities of Mario Puzo.
If movies had to rely completely on word of mouth and dumb luck to even get noticed the way most books do, I think people would have the impression that movies are better than books. You would see a lot more in the way of unexpected plot twists and the director’s voice coming through, along with all the other nice things people say about books.
The unfortunate reality just beneat the surface is this: there are a lot of terrible books that no one outside of the author’s circle of friends and a Dr’s office waiting room or two will ever own. They are just out of the way. The books that become movies are the ones that everyone reads, and everyone reads them because they were recommended. It’s all about quality control.
It’s also like comparing paintings to music. There are some things that make a painting good, and some things that make music good. Because they’re different, you really can’t make a direct comparison to the two. The movie Fantasia really drives the point home; some of the music described the images, some of the images described the music, but both the music and the images had to be good in and of themselves for the whole thing to be good. That’s the way it is with books and films; even though they’re related, the book’s only going to be good if it’s a good book, and the movie’s only going to be good if it’s a good movie.
As for twilight… come on. When the parody didn’t happen (Where WERE you, Mel Brooks?), you knew sooner or later someone would ride on Harry Potter’s coattails, all the way to the bank.
Books are always better.
Eragon was a gigantic disappointment, the book was great but the movie was god awful.
Now the series has been tainted and forgotten quickly because of the horrible movie.
Many of you may be a bit too young to remember it, but the most unusual but compelling movie adaption was “The World According to Garp” from the John Irving book. I never thought they could make a movie from that book, but it’s a great movie and a great book. The movie omitted some plotlines because it had to do so, but what remained was excellence in film making.
The books are usually better than the movie. The movies just don’t stay true to the book. I just learned to go and see the movie for the movie, not to compare it to the book.
The best pairing of book and movie I have seen is “The Princess Bride.” Reading the book makes the movie better, because the events are more fully described and the whole “gestalt” of the “good parts” version is set out. However, the movie is so wonderfully cast (Andre the Giant!) that being able to have the visual world in mind when reading the book adds to the pleasure in reading.
Books, definitely!
They butchered the last few Harry Potter movies- its one thing to cut out parts of a book for time constraints, but to actually change the plot?? Seriously??
The one I thought was very well done was the Chronicles of Narnia. They are very true to the books, and the movies are just spectacular!
I think the best book to film adaption i ever saw was Alice in wonderland and harry potter and also twilight and the last mimzy.Im young so i dont know too mant books-to-film adaptions..
I believe that if a book is made into a movie, the book will most likely be better. A book contains more details, and you can get into the characters’ heads. A lot of times that is how a large plot development is discovered: through the character’s thoughts. You lose that in a movie. And everyone sees the characters slightly differently, and sometimes they don’t portray them the way you want them to in the movie.
A book series I do not want to be made into a movie is the Warriors saga by Erin Hunter. They are extraordinary books, but I mean, its about cats. You’d have to get superior graphic design to make it look right, and though that is easier nowadays, Twilight didn’t do a very good job of it. Also, I will be very upset if the wrong person plays Firestar.
A play (yes I know its a play, not a movie, but they’re similar) that should not have been translated into a book was Wicked. The Wicked series by Gregory Maguire was HORRIBLE. It was the WORST book in the history of books. It didn’t follow the play AT ALL, it had NO emotion, and it basically SUCKED. My mother ripped out two pages before she let me read it, and i didn’t even finish it. What ever you do, don’t read it.
I just don’t think that it’s the JOB of movies to follow the book exactly. Where’s the fun in that? If you want something that’s just like the book, you may as well reread the book. Exact adaptations do nothing. Movies are a form of art and the moviemakers are allowed their interpretation of the story presented in the books. That said, I really don’t care how close a movie is to the book, as long as it doesn’t have a *completely* different plot or characters and it’s entertaining.
Some favorites: Harry Potter, Pride and Prejudice (Knightley), Howl’s Moving Castle. They’re all darling.
Horrible adaptations: The Golden Compass, Eragon, Twilight. The first two, because the movies were just plain badly made. The last because there was no good premise to begin with- the books are badly written, and the movies are both badly made and badly acted.
When you make a movie, you have to leave out parts of the book. Also, many books are done from a viewpoint that has absolutely nothing to with the author’s intent.
One of the worst adaptations I’ve seen is Bob Heinlein’s Starship Troopers. The movie maker opted for cheap thrills rather the epic story it is. It could have been right up there with Battle Cry.
99% of the time I think that the book is better than the movie. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t good movie adaptations, it’s just that most of them can never compare to the book. The most recent adaptation I can think of where the movie is a let down is the “Twilight” movie. I was watching it last night and I thought, this movie is just okay. The reason it isn’t a good movie is because it takes itself too seriously whereas there were moments of humor in the book that probably had to be cut for time purposes. That is what a book offers, brief moments that add up to create a rich character. On the reverse side there are a few books that are improved upon in movie version. Two of them are: “The Lost Moon” which was made into the movie “Apollo 13″ and “The Last of the Mohicans”. Both of these books were interesting but dense to read and the movie versions captured my attention without sacrificing the story, characters or essence of the book that they were based upon.
Books are way much better. If you have a creative mind, you can have your own perception of what you are reading. Films are all about who can make the biggest bang.
From what I have seen, the book is always better. I read The Lovely Bones about 2 weeks ago and saw the movie yesterday. The book is wonderful. The movie is awful. The timeline was so off from the book it was ridiculous and it didnt explain things that were happening well enough. If I hadn’t read the book, I would have been really confused. And visually, the first thing I thought of was that Lisa Frank had to have been director of photography…ugh bad…
movie
I believe regardless of how much better hollywood gets at special effects, graffic effects, there is nothing better then opening a book and having all the characters that you would like in those “roles”. As everyone who knows me know I am a die-hard Sherlock Holmes fan, I would much rather read the novels and short stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle then any screen adaptations of it (with the exception of the Jeremey Brett television series) because I want to have the power to make up what I want Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to be and look like, instead of having it be feed to me as Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law (which are great actors of there time). Thats what I think a movie cannot replace your imagination that books allow for. Yes it is true that movies are an art form, and they don’t need to follow the book exactly but most of the pertinent information gets jumbled and scrambles so much in movies you forget what the plot was about, books allow you to be taken in the deep confines of you mind and create a reality all of your own.
Books will always be better than the movies. In my opinion, as a director, writer and producer, if you have no intention on trying to bring as much of the book into the movie as possible then you have no reason to even film the movie. I’m tired of seeing adaptations that are maybe 1% true to the book.
I think sometimes we need to separat the two, even the moive was adapted from the book. Movie, however, tend to be more entertaining and visulized, while reading books gives us more space for imagination. I can’t say that book is 100% better than movie as I love seeing movies all the time.
Books are way better than movie adaptations because you get to feel the writer’s passion and also get literary nourishment-which leaves a lasting impression on you.Also disliked the Pelican Brief adaptation-they just couldn’t bring out the story.
Ah books are timeless..movies can get old and boring
I think books are better. Movies always take things out and change stuff.. Plus books are more detailed!
The Shining, by Steven King. People rave about the movie, but the book is so much better. The movie never really explains what happens and it has a different ending than the book. I prefer the book.
im sure that a book is better…u can concetrate more while reading
Forrest Gump was my favorite adaptation since the book was absolutely horrible, yet the movie was amazing.
Least favorite… Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. I read the Complete Guide the Summer before the movie came out and it had me laughing out loud. After that, the movie was just a disappointment.
Most of the movies I have seen that were based on books have been worse than the books. Lord of the Rings was pretty much the only one I found better than the book. I LOVE the movie, but find the book a bit hard to understand, and I read a lot, and have read pretty tough books. Series of Unfortunate Events, Harry Potter, The Lovely Bones, The Time Traveller’s Wife, and Eragon are movies that really disappointed me, as the books are incredible. I love the Twilight books, but the movies s*** me, not because of cut-outs and changes (the movies are really similar to the books), but because of the incredibly shoddy acting! The acting is terrible!
Oh, and I forgot My Sister’s Keeper. I loved both the book and the movie, but the book was 50 times better. I would love to see them make another movie of it that follows the book exactly (although that would never happen).
Books and movies should be treated as two completely different things. They are different in type, not in quality. Wouldn’t it be odd to say, “Ya, that classical music piece about Orpheus was good, but I liked the book more.” Or “Prometheus in this painting is good, but the book is better.” Yet we seem to be okay making this distinction with films and movies. Different media have different constraints which inform how the story will be displayed to us. FIlms are much better at doing action sequences than books are (typically) because we see it directly in real time. However, books typically can do internal monologues better. The forms (media ) have different strengths.
books are better.. you can really feel what the writer wants to convey.. because sometimes, in most movie adaptations, they add and remove lotsa stuff from the books.. although it’s nice to see the characters ‘come alive’..
books are better.. you can really feel what the writer wants to convey.. because sometimes, in most movie adaptations, they add and remove lotsa stuff from the books.. although it’s nice to see the characters ‘come alive’..
99.9% of the time the book is better; the book has more details that could be included and is not limited to two hours. Possibly the worst adaptation is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. That was GOD AWFUL. So much stuff was left out of my beloved book, I couldn’t even finish it. The best adaptation ever, in my opinion, is Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. GReat music, scenery, and even though the book has quite the unorthadox ending, its stays true to it…Darn, its just as good as the novel.
I think each is good but to really enjoy both, you have to almost consider them completely separately. If you keep drawing comparisons then the movie will probably not add up to what you expected after reading.
Books are wayy better than their film counterparts mostly.But in some like where the wild things are the film can be watched by older people too rather than just the kids who read the picture book. eragon, twiligth, etc are big flops in my view. i used to love new moon but after watching the movie, im too disgusted to even touch the book again.
I liked Banita Grandville in the Nancy Drew movies by Turner Broadcasting. I thought they were cute. The newer versions with a Nancy Drew that climbed up on a restaurant counter to mess with the t.v. was my least favorite. Have a Happy Valentines Day.
Worst book to movie adaptation – Ella Enchanted
Best book to movie adaptation – The Princess Bride
I have to say that the book has always been better than the movie for me. And, probably about 75% of the time, if I read the book before seeing the movie, I have a real hard time liking the movie.
But, if I see a movie before reading the book, I find that it usually adds more to book. I already know the characters, and the book usually just adds to that.
The books are always better than the movies. They cut out the most amazing parts in the movies because they can’t make a movie that’s too long, it sucks. For example with Twilight, I was like (blank look on face). Yeah …
I don’t know of any movie that was better than the book.
The least favorite for me is “Brigette Jones Diary”. The book was humorous and a good read but the movie (on DVD) was boring; I never finished seeing it, despite the fact that Rene Zellweger fits the role of Brigette quite well.
Also, “The Great Gatsby” and “The Firm” starring Tom Cruise were far less engaging than the books.
I’m not much of a book reader but I did however read Black Hawk Down. I watched the movie afterwards and was pretty disappointed.
All of the small books that we read in class don’t seem to have a very good movie adaptation. They are my least, along with Twilight. My favorite is Harry Potter, kinda.
If the movie was an adaptation, it is like always worse (or at least everything I’ve seen). If it was a book adaptation of a movie, the movie is better.
Though there is some positive things in movies, a film maker cannot give everything that are expressed in a book. A novel makes a person to know many things about human nature and character, psychology, general knowledge and many things. It makes a person to stay in peace, read in peace and at the same time enter a vast imaginary world and live with the characters more closely. While reading novels we can imagine the faces of the characters as we like where as in films it’s impossible. In this world book reading must be encouraged. It’s very important and necessary to all.
To me the lovely bones wasn’t a movie to go on the big screen…. It would’ve made a great lifetime movie but not something I would wanted to spend 9.50 on. From what the movie was advertising I was expecting something different to happen… and then I saw it and was pretty mad.. It was a sweet movie but not for the big screen.. I’m reading the book soon but my friend liked the book so I’m sure I will. Like Precious the movie was ok but the book was way better.
I like movies because you can really see what they’re doing! (without reading) But I like books because it unleashes your imagination and is 10x longer! I like both!
I have to agree with Dillon, a.k.a. No. 3 up there. Best adaptation: LOTR trilogy…though I would disagree and say that the movies did in fact hold more than a candle to the books…but were of course trumped by that classic medium of reading in the long run. And of course, worst adaptation…Eragon…even if they had the desire to create a movie version of Eldest (which I would STRONGLY advise against) they left out too many key plot devices in the first one for any sequel to be even mediocre…and the first movie was wretched…just downright hellishly painful!
i like both
Dune,Bicentenial Man,All of Anne Rice’s Books, All of Stephen King’s books,Clive Barker, actually almost all of the color movies. I did like I am Legend,but didn’t care to much for I,Robert. Why is hollywood obsessed with the intense sex scenes. Lots of times you loose the story. I’m so sure if some horrific thing or a destaster is about to happen your not thing of sex. I’m going back to my books and library
I prefer the books because you can imagine things how you want, and if you dont like the look of the way a character is, you can change it, but movies stick to one actor.
My least favorite Book>Movie conversions have to be
Eragon and The Saga Of Darren Shan (the movie turned to be called Cirque Du Freak: Vampire’s Assistant, the name of the first 2 books in the 12 book series)
I actually really like the Twilight Saga, way prefer the books but the films are really good, including the actors.
It depends on how well the adaptation is done. I’ve seen good adaptations and I’ve seen terrible adaptations. You mention Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I, I’m actually dreading that adaptation because none of the movies since the third movie have been what I’d call a good adaptation. There have been too many things cut out, too much useless elements added. My family have become more and more disappointed with what’s been left out and what’s been changed.
I HATE the movie version of BEOWULF, it completely betrays the original story Especially with grendel’s mother!!!
I usually prefer the book to the movie but that’s isn’t always the case. For instance, the book “Girl with a Pearl Earing” wasn’t as good as the movie. And I thought the moive “The Other Boleyn Girl” was just as good as the book.
i think the book is 100000000000000000000000000000000000 times better because the movie will always leave something out. movies can only be like 3 hours long and i am sure you could not read a harry potter book in 3 hours.
It depends on people. In my case, I prefer reading books over watching movies. Obviously, if you read books, you are able to imagine that you want and feel, but on ther other side, movie usually lock people in the limited places. Well, you can say any book of writer lock readers in their thinking, but it would be way lower than movie. It is quite clear.
im my opinion, books are better compared to movies. This is because books details every event that is going to. it gives a thorough information that makes a reader want to read for more. for instance, the book series of harry potter.. People reported a lot of missing piece in the movie.
to me books are the best…. u wont get the total satisfaction in movies but books can give that to u…so i love books more than movies…
I have found books to be almost always better than the movies based on them. The only exception I have come across so far is Jaws; the movie is a classic, and the book is truly awful.
i would say…
BOOKS are way better because a book can have 300, 400 and even 600 hundren pages.. but on the other hand a movie if its over 2 hours its too long.. and a movie will always leave parts out…
Best adaptation of a movie would be, in my opinion, Lord of the Rings. They made the story come alive, and truly kept to the novel. Its already a masterpiece as a trilogy in print, but on film it is just as magestic.
As for whether books or film is better for the story, this is a pecular view point for me to have, based on the fact I am pursuing drama at the moment at the post secondary level. Now that being said, to me the magic of drama is bringing those characters and stories to life, getting to almost “be in the novel” if you will. So in my opinion, the novels, the original story, the way they can use so much imagery and description that gets lost in movies, brings the artistic magnificence to a higher level than that of film. Now film is another art form, and is great to bring it to life, and can sometimes not only bring the novel to life but outshine the novel, but in the end you need to remember that film adaptations of novels are just that: they are putting the novel in perspective, showing it to the world, letting us have a glimpse into a place where our imaginations can run wild. But they are adaptations, not original, and in my opinion, the one who creates the plot in the first place usually trumps, atleast to a small degree, the one succeeding it.
Books are much better. Movies seem to always leave out alot of important detail. Like for instence, I saw the movie Cugo when I was a kid. Here recently I read the book, I was amazed at the difference. If you thought the movie was intense, then read the book. It will blow your socks off,,
Both Dan Brown’s “Angels and Demons” and “The DiVinci Code” were terrible movies!!!! Ron Howard made too many changes to both.
I prefer the books, I was a big fan of the A series of unfortunate events books by Lemony Snicket (Daniel Handler) and when the adapted it into a movie they mixed it up badly. They used Jim Carrey to play the antagonist Count. Olaf making him funny when he really shouldn’t have been, and they showed the movie with the events in the wrong order going from book 2 to book 3 to book 1 and putting Count Olaf in prison when he is completely fine at the end. And then not continuing to adapt the rest of the series
Books certainly. Personally i don’t feel like reading for long on my Laptop. My reading has considerably decreased since I have owned a laptop but it makes us easier to keep in touch with many subjects.
whichever came out first!
ilike the movie a walk 2 remember…. but recently i read it that book…the book is much more better than the movie…and i hope CAN YOU KEEP A SECRET by sophie kinsella….have a movie version also…
I really enjoyed reading everyone’s output on differences between books and movies. At one time I read alot but don’t have the time anymore. So I just go to see the movie. But I know when I did read a book and go see the movie something about the movie would be a big dissapointment. I have to agree with Nick though about the movie “The Shinning”. it had a lot of similarities and Jack Nicholson is a great actor something about him playing that part didn’t fit him. Nowhere in the book did the charactor stick his head through the hole in the door and announce “Here’s Johnny”. Not only hard covers but what Hollywood has done to comic book superheros is absured. Superman,..Spiderman…The Hulk..Batman and Robin. The films are a complete waste of time and are not the charactors I have loved and grown up with. Books definetly leave a lot to the imagnation and people just do not want to take the time to sit down and read anymore. What a shame. Good writing is truly an art and people only have time to read the supermarket tabloids while waiting to check out. And now this is all I have to say on the matter. Thank You.
The book is always better.
A remaking of the book into a movie, is kinda like a sequal, and as everyone knows; The original is always better than the copy.
EX: Harry Potter books are way better than the movies.
I have yet to see a film ruined by a book, whereas most excellent books have be ruined by some dork’s interprteatation in a film.
I have to agree with the majority. I’ve never seen a film better than a book. The closest it has came was bridge to terabithia. The movie is very very very very sad.
@Bonnie
What is the shinning is that a movie where people get kicked in the shins? Tut tut. Bad spelling. If i mispelled something in this, you can get angry at me too.
I think alot of authors are annoyed with their book’s movie. Take steven king’s movies. He was so disappointed by his movies that he went to direct his own. And that pile of garbage “the spiderwick chronicles” would’ve been hated by the writers themselves. The books are OK but the movie was ruined because they tried to stuff the books all into one film. They skipped one and a half entire books, and the rest of it was ruined because of the terrible actors they hired and since they changed almost all the rest of the story.
Here is my top ten bad movie interpretions:
1. Spiderwick chronicles
2. Eragon
3. The da vinci code
4. Harry potter 4
5. Superman
6. Hulk
7. Charlie and the chocolate factory(not the 1st1)
8. Narnia: The lion the witch and the wardrobe
9. Narnia: Prince caspian
10. Twilight (The books are bad, movie worse)
I like the Inheritance movie, Eragon. I liked the book better, but the movie was good too.
Conversely, I hate vimpires, so I hate Twilight in book and movie form.
Books are more mentally tasking than films. Good books are better than good films.
Wow… :O
That’s a lot of comments there.
Personally, I like Harry Potter novels more than their films. I’ve read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince novel. It’s awesome. In it’s film, there’s a lot of scenes in the novel been deleted. It’s hard to convert the whole year of the stories in the novel to film. The scriptwriter had a hard time to done it. The movie was not so good and an epic failure.
I’m glad the Deathly Hallows will be made in 2 parts. So they can tell the whole stories in the novel to it’s movies.
~Add/Email~
http://answers.yahoo.com/my/my;_ylt=Av04O9VtMxRQr2Mhv9nqU1vpy6IX;_ylv=3
If we talk about a movie that is based on a novel thn I wud personally go for a Book because after watching the movie Twlilight and Lord of the Rings I realized in movie they skiped few things and some other attractive aspects of story to fulfill the movie demands but beside novel as the matter of fact its true that a movie leaves more strong impact as compare to any book because it’s a human nature we believe, understand, pick and grab more what we see in a visual format or in a movie. Like they say “A picture is worth a thousand words” that describes that a picture tells a story just as well as a huge quantity of evocative content.
there are a very few book adaptations in movies that have been released like Godfather, Gone with the wind, who have stayed true to the book!! others, have not!!
well there are exceptions to every rule I would aggree.
I though the remakes of Hitchhikers guide to the galixy and the LOTR series where well done and totaly enjoyable. Then you get the Chronicles of Narnia. now the first attempt at them that was made by the BBC was also a Good retelling of the books that they did. Then Disney came in and I was thrilled here they where going to do them with a budget larger then lotr had for added detail. and while it had some awesome battle scenes they cut out so much of the story that if you hadn’t read the books it would seem like every thing happend for a totaly differnt reason then it was suspoed to happen. and it runied what made those battles so exciteing in the first place. so your left with a movie with a fluffy plot and nice scenery. not at all like the books, and not even worth watching.
The short story “Farewell to the Master” written by Harry Bates. Which was made into 1950′s movie called, “The day the Earth Stood Still”. Now most people are saying that the book and movie never match up. And this is the case here. On the other hand the short story was well written and it is based on the fact Gnuat/Gort is actually the protagonist, he has nothing to do with burning the Earth to a cinder. Just in replicating the damage he has done to living beings. Gnuat/Gort uses sound for his replications.
In “The day the Earth Stood Still” Gort is the robot/protector servant of Klaatu (“Gort, Klaatu varrada nikto”, I will always remember that line in case I run into Gort). Instead of replicating living beings, Klaatu is sent here to get the people of Earth to live in harmony with each other.
A book that I read after the movie came out was the “Andromeda Strain”. Michael Crichton had written the book so engrossed in medical tech terms that if you had not seen the movie first, you would need a medical dictionary. In this case the movie was better then the book. Although I enjoy Crichton books.
“Blade Runner”/”Do Androids dream of electric sheep?” Written by Philip K. Dick. Read the book and seen the movie. Book was definitely better then the movie.
As you can see I genre of Books and movies are pretty much science fiction.
I think the two are good, but one is better than the other .Flims are been acted is directed by book,without book it will be deficult by an actor to act pefectly.So book better than flim.
I remember reading in some article about The Godfather, people actually say that the movie is a lot better, but for me I like books more, but movies are just faster to watch
the only exception where movies are better is when focus goes to porn 
I’ve always been a vivid reader, and try to see the movies when they come out as a movie. I’ve seen a lot of people comment about “Eragon”, and all I have to say is that I’m glad I saw the movie first then read the book or I would have been so mad at the waste of time. It is a very good movie – if you haven’t read the book first. the Harry Potter movies leave much to be desired – so much is left out and/or changed that I really don’t even care to watch them anymore. Another that I was VERY disappointed in, even as a kid, was The Black Stallion. It changes EVERYTHING by having Alec’s father on the boat and getting killed when the ship goes down, as his father ties in VERY strongly in the other 20 books that go along in the The Black Stallion Saga. Also “I Am Legend” with Will Smith is NOTHING like the novella. If you want it close watch “The Last Man on Earth” with Vincent Price.
One of the best book-to-movie has to be Stephen King’s “The Green Mile”. It is almost spot on, with a few minor things changed that don’t detract from the movie at all.
Books that I would LOVE seen made to movies would be:
1 -The Dragonrider’s Series by Anne McCaffery as we have the technology (CGI, etc) to make it look great. But I think there are too many “Pernese” out there that if it weren’t done right, the writers, producers, and directors would be murdered.
2 – “The Incarnations of Immortality” series by Piers Anthony.
3 – “The Frankenstien Trilogy” by Dean Koontz.
are you crazy : films is the shit
After reading the various comments i have concluded that people judge the book or film on how accurately the story progresses accordingly to the initial book/film. In my opinion people have forgotten the meaning of a “film adaptation”. Films are not supposed to follow books word for word, it would be impractical and somewhat unentertaining (in terms of what you actually see). The storyline from films are merely (and sometimes briefly) based on the books with the director free to create his or her own interpretation, whatever it may be. So for those people who say: “Books are way better”, please open your scopes and think about what you are actually refering to. It would be legitimate to say that a movie was bad if it was not entertaining, bad acting etc., but to say that it wasn’t good because it did not follow the book would ignorant. You simply cannot compare the two in that sense; it’s like comparing an apple and an orange.
You go to the cinema to see a film, a picture presentation.
Not a book on film.
However, if you are looking for a book on film, miniseries are usually your best option.
I think that books are way better. With out the books, alot of movies would not be here. So many movies are based on the book. Also, you can read a book at your own pace. If you watch a movie you watch the whole thing at once. I guess you could argue that if you own a movie you could watch it at your own pace. However if you own the movie, chances are you bought it with your money. Books are free at the libary. Only some movies are free (or at least at the libary).
In my opinion, the book is always better, it provides details that you can’t show on film, or that the director has to cut out due to budget constraints, physical restrictions, time, etc. What you can write cannot always be represented on screen. There are great movie adaptions of written works out there, but they often have to be changed or adapted to meet requirements.
Flim I don’t read except the bible
Books make your imagination wider and better while movies entertain you and movies take less time like 2 hours while you finish a book in 3-9 days if it wasn’t long…
the books are better because we design the “movie in our mind”
The best movie adaption would have to be Malcolm X because of the great acting and awesome storyline. The book is a classic so it would have to be better, but the movie was awesome. The worst, for me, would The Series of Unfortunate Events. It was just weird and dumb. A poor way to broadcast an excellent series.
I personally love books but I also like to see what the characters in it look like, so a movie would nice. If there is no movie to a book or vise versa, I love to read books and I could just make up a movie in my mind!
In My Opinion, The Books Are Sometimes Better Than The Movie…. The Author Adds More Deatil In The Book Than The Movie Can Explain… Its Really Depends On How You Understand Things. If You Are More Of A Person Who Understands Things Better By Seeing It, You Would Like The Movie Better. If You Are More Of A Person Who Understands Things Better By Reading It You Would Like The Book Better.