Comments on: Book or film: which is better?

By: Sal506

Sal506 — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:40:09 +0000

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.

By: ashley

ashley — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:53:55 +0000

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!

By: Omar

Omar — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:21:28 +0000

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.

By: Mister Me

Mister Me — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:17:34 +0000

the books are better because we design the “movie in our mind”

By: ADEL

ADEL — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:53:50 +0000

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…

By: c

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 03:44:07 +0000

Flim I don’t read except the bible

By: Debbie

Debbie — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:54:35 +0000

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.

By: Cate

Cate — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:18:13 +0000

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).

By: IAmTooIntelligentForThisTown

IAmTooIntelligentForThisTown — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:20:46 +0000

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.

By: jamac

jamac — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:19:27 +0000

are you crazy : films is the shit