Books vs. Movies.

[Cougar 0]

So what do you think? Do you think that the books (any books) are better than their movie counterparts? Do you prefer the movie counterparts to the books? Me I think they are both good in their own ways. Books are good for things that they can't put into the movies or don't want to due to plot reasons. Movies are great for the entertainment they provide. I know that somethings will have changed, look at the Harry Potter books compared to the movies for example.

[esperia 0]

books of course!!!!!

[Lucky Strike 0]

hmmm... depends... it's all about the book and the adaptation... sometimes the adaptation is better... others is the book... to some they are both equal... but the book usually is better... then again it's all about the plot... baaaaad books may do a wonderfull film! and good books may be killed(!!!!) on screen

[lea75 0]

For me there is no contest...I will take the book any day!

[smorkle 0]

lea75 wrote:

For me there is no contest...I will take the book any day!

me too!

[esperia 0]

Lucky Strike wrote:

hmmm... depends... it's all about the book and the adaptation... sometimes the adaptation is better... others is the book... to some they are both equal... but the book usually is better... then again it's all about the plot... baaaaad books may do a wonderfull film! and good books may be killed(!!!!) on screen

i have different opinion think many movies like harry potter, twilight , da vinci code(the movie was horrible and boring), the parfume (horrible film), the merchant of venice by shakespeare, phantom of the opera!!!
in my opinion only lord of the rings is good movie but many things dont appear to movie

[Cougar 0]

Books are good. I will admit that, but there is something to be said about the movies too, on that I will agree with Lucky Strike. It depends on the movie.

[bunnyfuzzyness 0]

The book!!

I am hoping hubby surprises me with a couple of new books
He just went to the store and I asked him to grab one.....he told me to scrub the pets on ps ....mr smartypants!

[Cougar 0]

I respect your opinion Esperia but I for one found Lord of the Rings very long and very boring and the book more so. I paid to see LOTR found out that the theater over booked the theater showing LOTR at the time. My mom, my sister and my brothers stayed to watch. My dad walked out after the first half hour of the movie, me I went and switched theaters and ended up watching the first Harry Potter which was also out at that time. I asked my mom and my sister what they thought of LOTR and they both said they wished they had snuck out of the theater and into the theater showing the HP movie. They said they were bored with the LOTR movie after the first hour and half of fighting. And wished that they could just steal the ring and toss it into the nearest fire themselves. Again that is mine and their opinion but it just goes to show some things pleases some people and other things appeal to others.

[esperia 0]

Cougar wrote:

I respect your opinion Esperia but I for one found Lord of the Rings very long and very boring and the book more so. I paid to see LOTR found out that the theater over booked the theater showing LOTR at the time. My mom, my sister and my brothers stayed to watch. My dad walked out after the first half hour of the movie, me I went and switched theaters and ended up watching the first Harry Potter which was also out at that time. I asked my mom and my sister what they thought of LOTR and they both said they wished they had snuck out of the theater and into the theater showing the HP movie. They said they were bored with the LOTR movie after the first hour and half of fighting. And wished that they could just steal the ring and toss it into the nearest fire themselves. Again that is mine and their opinion but it just goes to show some things pleases some people and other things appeal to others.

hahahahahahaha i know what u mean i saw 1st movie of LOTR at cinema and felt bored too!!!!!!!!i couldnt wait to finish!!!!!!!!!!but when i saw them again via dvd i admire them as movies!!!!!!!they r something different

[Cougar 0]

Yes I quite agree with you on that one. They are something different. Me I am not that much of an action movie person. Some is fine but too much fighting I don't like. And I agree again with Lucky Strike, some great books make lousy movies and some bad books make great movies. I guess it all depends on who writes the scripts and who is directing the movies. I have yet to see "Avatar" along with the "Twilight" series even though I read the whole "Twilight" series just to see what it was all about. It was good. I am not sure about Avatar but I would like to see the "Twilight" series to see if its anything like the books.

[Lucky Strike 0]

esperia wrote:

Lucky Strike wrote:

hmmm... depends... it's all about the book and the adaptation... sometimes the adaptation is better... others is the book... to some they are both equal... but the book usually is better... then again it's all about the plot... baaaaad books may do a wonderfull film! and good books may be killed(!!!!) on screen

i have different opinion think many movies like harry potter, twilight , da vinci code(the movie was horrible and boring), the parfume (horrible film), the merchant of venice by shakespeare, phantom of the opera!!!
in my opinion only lord of the rings is good movie but many things dont appear to movie

pride and prejudice was good... les miserables was GOOD!

Cougar wrote:

Books are good. I will admit that, but there is something to be said about the movies too, on that I will agree with Lucky Strike. It depends on the movie.

thank you!

Cougar wrote:

I respect your opinion Esperia but I for one found Lord of the Rings very long and very boring and the book more so. I paid to see LOTR found out that the theater over booked the theater showing LOTR at the time. My mom, my sister and my brothers stayed to watch. My dad walked out after the first half hour of the movie, me I went and switched theaters and ended up watching the first Harry Potter which was also out at that time. I asked my mom and my sister what they thought of LOTR and they both said they wished they had snuck out of the theater and into the theater showing the HP movie. They said they were bored with the LOTR movie after the first hour and half of fighting. And wished that they could just steal the ring and toss it into the nearest fire themselves. Again that is mine and their opinion but it just goes to show some things pleases some people and other things appeal to others.

[esperia 0]

Cougar wrote:

Yes I quite agree with you on that one. They are something different. Me I am not that much of an action movie person. Some is fine but too much fighting I don't like. And I agree again with Lucky Strike, some great books make lousy movies and some bad books make great movies. I guess it all depends on who writes the scripts and who is directing the movies. I have yet to see "Avatar" along with the "Twilight" series even though I read the whole "Twilight" series just to see what it was all about. It was good. I am not sure about Avatar but I would like to see the "Twilight" series to see if its anything like the books.

i read all twilight books and im disappointed with movies(up to now hope eclipse be better)
as far miserables again i prefer books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cougar 0]

Yes I agree with you (again) on the Les Miserables (if I have spelled it right) the book was way better. Saw the movie with Liam Neesom(?) in it and had an easier time understanding what was going on with the book than I had with the movie.

[Tiddly Winks 0]

esperia wrote:

hahahahahahaha i know what u mean i saw 1st movie of LOTR at cinema and felt bored too!!!!!!!!i couldnt wait to finish!!!!!!!!!!but when i saw them again via dvd i admire them as movies!!!!!!!they r something different

I fell asleep during the first LOTR film. As for other books vs. movies. I think the book can pack a lot more information than the film. With movies, you only got 2 hours (maybe more) to tell the whole story, whereas books can be as long as people want.

I will say that if I read a book and I don't like it, I will not be paying money to go see the movie. Twilight is something I did read and hated, so I have absolutely zero interest in any of the films. I think that a lot of people's interest can get sparked from reading the book first, but there will always be those who will see the film because they loved the book,

The only book based film that I have ever watched before reading the book was actually my favorite movie of all time: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The same with The Wizard of Oz. Both films are classics, IMHO, but they are based on books. Tons fo films were based on books, so Harry Potter, Narnia, Lord of the Rings, and Twilight are really nothing new.

[Lucky Strike 0]

esperia wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Yes I quite agree with you on that one. They are something different. Me I am not that much of an action movie person. Some is fine but too much fighting I don't like. And I agree again with Lucky Strike, some great books make lousy movies and some bad books make great movies. I guess it all depends on who writes the scripts and who is directing the movies. I have yet to see "Avatar" along with the "Twilight" series even though I read the whole "Twilight" series just to see what it was all about. It was good. I am not sure about Avatar but I would like to see the "Twilight" series to see if its anything like the books.

i read all twilight books and im disappointed with movies(up to now hope eclipse be better)
as far miserables again i prefer books!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i didn't said that it was better i said thta it was good

Cougar wrote:

Yes I agree with you (again) on the Les Miserables (if I have spelled it right) the book was way better. Saw the movie with Liam Neesom(?) in it and had an easier time understanding what was going on with the book than I had with the movie.

books should be better as they give more info and you can picture them in your head. What I want to say is that a film maybe good or (sometimes) better than the book. but in general the book is better

[Tiddly Winks 0]

Well, if my book were ever made into a movie, I'd want Patrick Stewart to play the main character.

[Lucky Strike 0]

that's the spirit!

[Tiddly Winks 0]

Oh yeah...If I'm going to get my book done, then let's get one of the greatest actors around to play the lead.

[esperia 0]

i know lucky

[Cougar 0]

Good for you Yvette! My mom is working on turning her book into a movie and she wants.....well I don't remember who she wants to play lead in her movie. I wish that she would publish the children's book that she wrote about me. She still has it in rough form, at least I think she still has it. We have moved around so much I don't know any more.

[Tiddly Winks 0]

I need to figure out where to send my book. I think the plot is pretty good, but that's just me. For now, I'm writing fan fiction and song lyrics.

But, i still think that the books are better, because the movies are not always carrying the same vision as the authors intended.

[Tromo3 0]

Books!!!

[Cougar 0]

That is so true Yvette. I am still waiting for my copy of your book. And if I can get my mom to publish her children's book that she wrote about me I shall give you a copy in trade. Who knows maybe I might even publish it myself.

[D.S-G.P 0]

Personally, I find books better. It's roughly for the fact that it gives me the feeling of accomplishment after I've read it. That somehow adds points to my admiration of the book (I don't know why but it's true!). Another thing is that I really like details (sometimes, even too much!). Books present more vivid descriptions of its characters, settings and story but sometimes, I admit it really gets boring especially when I'm not interested in the plot.
But then again, I find the books better.

[Tsukiko 0]

i think the books are the best! movies sometimes leave out parts i think are important!

[Leahfy 0]

I have seen movies that were better than the books they were based on - a few - and a lot of movies where they weren't anywhere near as good as the books.

There have been a bunch of movies based on the Dortmunder books by Donald Westlake, none have been as good as the books, but there's been a huge variation on which ones were better and which were worse movies, too.

I think the Jurassic park movie was better than the book - it's just way better seeing the dinosaurs also I don't like the way Crichton writes

[shaphat 0]

Books are better, most times I've loved the book more than the movie, but of course it's nice to see it in the big screen too.

[dimplezkarena 0]

I agree with Tsukiko, it's the small parts that you think are cute or interesting or important that make up what you really like about the story

[lithiumkat 0]

My general rule of thumb is that books are always better, however, having said that I will admit that there are some of the movies I REALLY REALLY like and comes in real close with the book. But generally I think books are better.

[hinapasha 0]

Books are generally better than their movie counterparts but that's partly because a movie will probably not be made based on a book that was written horribly. A talented filmmaker can take a lousy book and from that create a gem of a movie. A bad filmmaker can butcher a wonderful book. The advantage that books have over movies is of course they can be as long as the writer wishes and are full of description, character thoughts, etc so that the reader can understand the full picture as far as the story goes. Movies have a time limit so the adaption has to be condensed and sometimes a new ending has to be written to make it more appealing to the audience. But movies have background music, sound, lighting, etc., and a really talented filmmaker can create some very cool stylistic scenes which imprint themselves on the minds of the audience.

[Lucky Strike 0]

i second that!