The book vs. the movie

[Trefellin]

In the case of literature being adapted into movies, do you usually enjoy the book or the film more? I find that I usually prefer the book.

Some examples that I can think of better books:

A Clockwork Orange
1984
Lord of the Rings trilogy(it doesn't help that I'm a Tolkien purist)

Some examples of better films:

The Last of the Mohicans
Jurassic Park

Which do you usually like more, the book or the movie?

[Justinian]

I'd say I prefer the book over the movie. The movie usually leaves out quite a bit in most books, but sometimes a movie can make a really "bad" book seem better.

[Vaikyuko]

I prefer the book over the movie, unless the movie is extremely well done.

[Sushikins]

Book generally over the movie, since the movie has to change or remove events to fit into the time length usually, plus changing endings to make it more suitable for viewers who wants excitement.

[Amuro]

Book, I guess. I think it's fair to say that 2001: A Space Odyssey was more or less conceived as a movie first, ans it's considered a great movie. In contrast, the book isn't necessarily viewed as one of the greater examples of written science fiction.
Even so, I prefer the book of 2001 over the movie. The book was really addictive and pretty entertaining whereas I couldn't actually finish the movie out of boredom. I can't say that the movie has aged well. I think that the unprecedented special effects were supposed to help compensate for the slow pace and give the viewer something to examine during those long dialogue-less shots. However, the special effects/"impeccable vision of future technology" aren't enough to hold my attention nowadays when nothing interesting is happening on the screen.. (well, supposedly it is, according to film critics, but I'm not lucid enough to see it)

[StandingAlone]

Definitely book. I have never really seen a movie that's better then the book because of movies having to leave out minor/major details that help to tell the story to the fullest. I thought that the Lord of the Rings movies were very well done and great entertainment, but they just couldn't stand up to the books (leaving out Tom Bobadil...pshhh!)

The deus ex machina... um excuse, me Harry Potter movies were also very good, but still, the books were much better.

I guess in a book you grow closer and relate better to the characters because of more detail about them. Also, the time put into reading a book is much longer and more satisfying then a movie imo.

[Caster13]

usually books.

[TheDarkHunter]

I always say they are two different mediums and should be looked at as such. A book can add hundreds of details and be as long as it wants but a movie can't. I always look at a movie as a separate "creature" and embrace it if it is good, and despise it if it is bad. Like I prefer books over all because I find it easier to handle and get a hold of but I do enjoy a lot of movies as well.

[Misaki]

Books are always better.

[Onigiri]

It really depends on the book that's being adapted.
Well, at least for me.

[Lord Timaeus]

Usually the books, but I gotta admit the Chronicles of Narnia movie was very well done and much more climactic compared to the book.

The Jurassic Park movie, however, was only good for Dennis Nedry's Magic Word scene. Plus I honestly could not imagine Jeff Goldblum as Malcolm, no matter how hard I tried.

[Bernard_Monsha]

The only case of the movie being better than the book is M.A.S.H, the book is terrible the movie is great.

[Leader Desslock]

Usually the books, but I gotta admit the Chronicles of Narnia movie was very well done and much more climactic compared to the book.
I thought the battle was a bit anticlimactic in the movie, the way it went all slow-mo and everything. I loved the movie (and own it), but that was the part I thought didn't fit in so well. The end of the movie (the coronation and return) was done well and consistently with the source, I thought.

If they do all seven books, I actually doubt The Last Battle movie adaptation will hold up to the book. A lot of that book is carried through the tone of the narration, and that won't work as well. The Silver Chair will adapt well, as will The Magician's Nephew, which I expect to be one of the stronger films if they make it.

I just want to see The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader. That's all. I can die happy after that.

[echoside]

book, i'm weary of the new movie i am legend / book by Richard Matheson
will smith just doesn't fit the main character to me

[Anamin]

The book usually has more details. I like to know what the characters are thinking.

[Shiroiyuki]

The only case of the movie being better than the book is M.A.S.H, the book is terrible the movie is great.

I agree ^_^, but I liked the series just a *bit* more....

[goddessofanime]

Book. Hands down.

Usually the movie adaptations change things around.

[yasly]

The book is always superior to the movie.Perhaps for one or two rare exeptions.It's only normal for one can use their imagination without an end while reading a book,a movie however has it limitations.

[sreeja]

I think the book.It is usually contain more .But movie is more expressive.

[Masokick]

I prefer the book to the movie.

I feel sorry for Stephen King, he writes such interesting stories but they do not translate well into film; It, The Stand, Needful Things... just better as books in his case.

I think the adaptation of The Lord of the Rings was done very well, they cut out a lot of the dry bits. I tried to read The Fellowship of the Ring three times in elementary school and got so bored with the description of Frodo's fake move out of Bag-end and it was years before I could get past that chapter. (Once I did, I loved it). But parts of those books are bone dry. If those movies get people reading the books, then I'm happy.

My two favourite adaptations are Watership Down and The Last Unicorn, both great books, and made into very good films.

[Meggles]

Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy was a spectacular book! The movie was funny, but it cannot compare.

[cyborgaaron]

Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy was a spectacular book! The movie was funny, but it cannot compare.

The only thing I laughed at on the movie was how crappy it was compaired to the book. :P In my opinon the movie was broken and horrible, they split the basic plot to it and that was irritating. The book was a piece of art, funny and great.

[StandingAlone]

^ I have never read the book, though I have heard many people that it is quite good. I saw the movie and thought it was pretty funny in a weird way. I need to read the book soon, but I hope the movie hasn't spoiled anything for me. That's one of the big problems with books that are made into movies. If you see the movie before reading the book sometimes it ruins the reading experience.

[Caster13]

I've read through LOTR before I saw the movies, so I knew that the big battles were gonna be kickass before the movies even came out. I haven't read all of the books ENTIRELY, because the third one is so damn drawn out.

But I do know a LOT of differences. If they tried to go for almost total accuracy, then the movies would have been VERY long.

[Randy]

I have always like the book more. I just saw the movie for 1984 and was bored by it. I loved the book though. Yet I was watching it with my grandfather so the parts with Julia just made everything uncomfortable.

[Tom Servo]

The day of the triffids came out ok in movie form but I don't know why they changed the ending completely.

With something like the golden compass/northern lights I don't want to see the movie, or even a trailer of it, in case it ruins my image of the characters and the scenery described in the book.

[Samurai Drifter]

Saw The Golden Compass the other day... a decent movie on its own, but a pathetic substitute for the book.

[Holy Knight]

Typically, the book, though sometimes the movie does it justice and, rarely, surpasses its origins.

A great example of an adaptation would be the LoTR movies. They went beyond expectation in delivering.

Saw The Golden Compass the other day... a decent movie on its own, but a pathetic substitute for the book.

And here's a great example of a pathetic excuse for a film. They cut out too much without keeping what made the books great and gave us an incredibly frustrating ending so obvious in its message that I had to wonder what the producers were thinking.

[ThePhillyFlash]

I feel sorry for Stephen King, he writes such interesting stories but they do not translate well into film; It, The Stand, Needful Things... just better as books in his case.

Couldn't agree more. Most of Stephen King's book have been pretty much butchered when translated to either TV or movies. Now this is just my opinion, but the only book that was well adapted was the 1979 tele-movie version of Salem's Lot. Otherwise, it's been a disappointing history.

[Caine]

Here's one: Blade Runner vs Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
The movie is usually ranked as a great movie, but I thought the book was better. The movie changed a lot and consequently lost a lot, but was great in what it had.


In general, I do prefer the book over the movie.

[Smith]

The Mark Wahlberg film 'Shooter' pales in comparsion to the book it is based off of 'Point of Impact' by Stephen Hunter. While the movie is good and decent, the book laps it around a hundred times.

Yea, teh book.

[Ikari Warrior]

The book is better.
Movies are always shorter.
It's all about time.

[blackknight]

The book 99.9% of the time.

I must say, probably the absolute worst movie translation of a book was Disney's "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy". The only actor who fit the role they were cast was Alan Rickman as Marvin, and he was just a voice. It was the most epic fail in moviedom I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. Even now I can hardly believe it was so bad, and have to force myself not to rent it again to make sure.

Garth Jennings needs to be shot for directing this staggering piece of crap.
Karey Kirkpatrick needs to be shot for writing the screenplay of this staggering piece of crap.
Robbie Stamp needs to be shot for being the executive producer of this staggering piece of crap.
Michael Eisner and Robert Iger both need to be shot for allowing this staggering piece of crap to be released to the masses.

[Kagura]

Well, from my point of view, I would have to say Books too. Books keep all of the original content as they were originally written. When directors make movies, they tend to edit things out, maybe add something here or there, maybe some filler material, etc and maybe some other things that make the movie dumb compared to the book. From what I have heard and so on, "Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight" is different and no where near as good as the book. I have seen the movie and I do gotta admit, there were times I got kind of confused and so on. The Black Knight has read the book and said that there was a lot cut out of the movie that was in the book. We discussed a little about the comparison between this movie and the book and no wonder I was kind of confused at times. Some of the important events or things happening previous to an event were cut out and so when something happened, it didn't make a lot of sense. Also, the voices in this movie were annoying... when you read a book, you can enjoy it however you wish like listening to a little music, relaxing in a chair, or laying on the bed, whatever.

[TalaRain]

I love books. But I like Movies too. I am more apt to pick up a book then put in a movie. so Book vs Move...wich is better?? Both.

[Caster13]

Holy necromancy Batman!!!

[Sora N]

Usually books are better although I like watching movies more then reading the books that most major movies are adapted from. For example I really love the new “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” movie and I really liked the children’s book too…however the movie gives more information and I personally think that the difference gives the movie more charm then the book.

[mooseegg1982]

I would say I like the book better, but sometimes it is better to just watch a movie. You get the story (even though it is shorter) in a quicker span of time than a book. But I will still cast my vote on book.

[Scandiadream]

The movie version of The House of the Spirits is better than the book. Why? It is much more refined. The original book was too vulgar. And I liked the consolidations of certain character actions in the movie better.

I also like the Alfonso Cuaron movie version of A Little Princess a bit better than the book. I did not like the Shirley Temple version anywhere near as much. The book is great- but the 1995 movie has a few details and additions that make it extra special.

[Clayton]

The live action TV series of Witchblade and the Dresden novels were both cancelled far too soon

[old hat]

It varies. Mostly the book is better but not always. Long winded 19th century novels like The Last of the Mohicans or Moby **** are better as movies. The movie versions cut all all the tedious rubbish and long winded descriptions of things.

It's geek blasphemy but I thought the Lord of the Rings novels were better as movies than as books. Tolkien gets very caught up in showing you the world he has created and there are a lot of digressions and characters playing tour guide for no apparent reason. and on our left you will see the ruins of the tower of Amon Sul built in the days of the Kingdom or Arnor by the blah blah blah. He rather skimps on descriptions of the action scenes too. The battle at Amon Hen goes something like this

*phew* That was a tough fight but we defeated those Orcs we did.
*blat blat*
Oh no the hord of Gondor. Boromir must be in trouble. We must hurry
*run run*
Oh no it's too late he's done for.
They took the hobbits *cough cough*
Boromir dies. The end

King's books translate better into a TV miniseries than a single movie but they are better as books.

[Meggles]

The book is usually better, but in the case of Fight Club, its usually agreed that the movie was better than the book. Heck, I read somewhere that even the author thought so.

I think the main problem with adapting a book to a movie is that books and film tell stories in different ways. Its not that books are inherently better than movies, its that a book is a different medium from film and has different constraints. Sometimes the transition is lackluster.

[Gaming_Bum]

True Blood the hbo series was more entertaining than Dead untill Dark in my opinion.