I Think The Book's Better Than The Movie...

  • 86 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for sune_Gem
sune_Gem

12463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#1 sune_Gem
Member since 2006 • 12463 Posts

Man, how many times have you heard this? I'm not much of a reader myself, but literally every single person who's ever read and watched the movie and book to something will always say the book's better. While maybe the book is better sometimes, surely, I've never heard anyone say they preferred the movie in these scenarios.

Is this just hipsters being hip, or are books really that good? If so, why do movies even exist then?

Avatar image for Justforvisit
Justforvisit

2660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 Justforvisit
Member since 2011 • 2660 Posts

Well, books allow you to form and create the universe of the book as you imagine it, while a movie gives them a set form not everybody might like.

I read the Lord of The Ring before it came into the cinemas in a big 3 part trilogy and also saw it and own the DVD's...and I like both, both have their ups and downs, for example, the movie left out some nice side stories and characters of the book, but then again, a book doesn't have awesome epic music and beautiful screenplay.

Avatar image for Pirate700
Pirate700

46465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Pirate700
Member since 2008 • 46465 Posts

Sometimes the book may really be better, but I think most of the time, it's just the hipster thing to say. And people want you to know they're readers.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

Well, books allow you to form and create the universe of the book as you imagine it, while a movie gives them a set form not everybody might like.

Justforvisit

Basically this.

 

Avatar image for sune_Gem
sune_Gem

12463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#5 sune_Gem
Member since 2006 • 12463 Posts

Sometimes the book may really be better, but I think most of the time, it's just the hipster thing to say. And people want you to know they're readers.

Pirate700

This is how I feel. Obviously sometimes I imagine the book's better as more often than not it's the source material, but sometimes I feel people only say it's better to try and stand out from the crowd as movies are much more popular.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
Wilfred_Owen

20964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#6 Wilfred_Owen
Member since 2005 • 20964 Posts
Yeah....couldn't read Lord of the Rings.
Avatar image for wolverine4262
wolverine4262

20832

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 wolverine4262
Member since 2004 • 20832 Posts

Every time I say it I mean it. Also, usually its probably true. Words have a limitless budget, so what can be put on paper is often much more epic and complex than what can be put on screen.

However, I do think there are many instances in the Harry Potter series where the movies outclass the books.

Avatar image for sune_Gem
sune_Gem

12463

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#8 sune_Gem
Member since 2006 • 12463 Posts

Yeah....couldn't read Lord of the Rings.Wilfred_Owen

I adctually tried reading The Hobbit as LoTR is easily my favourite film series of all time. I just couldn't though. I got so bored while reading it, and I pride myself on being able to use my imagination well. Books just aren't for me, but that's besides the topic point now.

Avatar image for Pirate700
Pirate700

46465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Pirate700
Member since 2008 • 46465 Posts

[QUOTE="Justforvisit"]

Well, books allow you to form and create the universe of the book as you imagine it, while a movie gives them a set form not everybody might like.

Aljosa23

Basically this.

 

If someone legitimately liked the book better, that's typically what I assume. They liked their imagination better than the movie.

Avatar image for MetroidPrimePwn
MetroidPrimePwn

12399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#10 MetroidPrimePwn
Member since 2007 • 12399 Posts

They are always very different, and that's a good thing, as the movies that try to just put everything from the book into the movie invariably end up being movies that are bloated, filled with cheesy narration, and are wholly uninteresting.

I don't think most people are being "hipster" when they say they like the book better, because if the book is something you really liked it's entirely possible you're just not going to like the movie as much, but I do think people are being unfair when they say that the movie is bad BECAUSE it is different from the book. I mean holy **** I can't even imagine how much additional standing around and talking there would be added into the Harry Potter movies if they wanted to get ALL of the background info that is in the books into the movies.

Avatar image for tryagainlater
tryagainlater

7446

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#11 tryagainlater
Member since 2005 • 7446 Posts

I generally like to view them as two separate things in terms of quality. Often times, books are better realisations of the world and tell the story better such as with Game of Thrones but I never tell anyone they have to read the books if they like the show.

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
Any 'hipster' bullshit is an outlier. More often then not, people mean it when they say the book's better. For the reasons others have mentioned.
Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Sometimes the book may really be better, but I think most of the time, it's just the hipster thing to say. And people want you to know they're readers.

sune_Gem

This is how I feel. Obviously sometimes I imagine the book's better as more often than not it's the source material, but sometimes I feel people only say it's better to try and stand out from the crowd as movies are much more popular.

Hmmm...

The original, fully fleshed-out story in the book?

or

A truncated version of that story that's often been further re-written to appeal to what Hollywood studios think the audience wants to see, and that strips away much of the context and meanng of the story?

 

Yeah, clearly preferring the book is just the hipster thing to do.

Avatar image for cain006
cain006

8625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 0

#14 cain006
Member since 2008 • 8625 Posts

I liked True Blood a while back and so picked up the first few books it was based on. The show is way better. I think most people say the book is better because it's a way of bragging that they read basically. I bet that in general, the book is better though.

Avatar image for nooblet69
nooblet69

5162

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#15 nooblet69
Member since 2004 • 5162 Posts

Usually the book will be better than the movie if you like reading. They tend to go way more in depth and really tell the whole story while the movie tries to tell everything in a short amount of time. If the writer is good the book will usually be better than the movie.

Avatar image for Wilfred_Owen
Wilfred_Owen

20964

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 34

User Lists: 0

#16 Wilfred_Owen
Member since 2005 • 20964 Posts
Hmmm...The original, fully fleshed-out story in the book?

or

A truncated version of that story that's often been further re-written to appeal to what Hollywood studios think the audience wants to see, and that strips away much of the context and meanng of the story?

 

Yeah, clearly preferring the book is just the hipster thing to do.

worlock77
Are you a hipster gramps?
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
Tc, you are misguided about this notion that the hipster thing is at all a major or even just significant factor in this.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#18 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

[QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Sometimes the book may really be better, but I think most of the time, it's just the hipster thing to say. And people want you to know they're readers.

worlock77

This is how I feel. Obviously sometimes I imagine the book's better as more often than not it's the source material, but sometimes I feel people only say it's better to try and stand out from the crowd as movies are much more popular.

Hmmm...

The original, fully fleshed-out story in the book?

or

A truncated version of that story that's often been further re-written to appeal to what Hollywood studios think the audience wants to see, and that strips away much of the context and meanng of the story?

 

Yeah, clearly preferring the book is just the hipster thing to do.

OP believes he's a special little snowflake and everyone else is just sheep trying to look cool. OP is truly a shining light in a sea of sheeple.

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts

Sometimes the book may really be better, but I think most of the time, it's just the hipster thing to say. And people want you to know they're readers.

Pirate700
I just have to shake my head at this stuff
Avatar image for Pirate700
Pirate700

46465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 Pirate700
Member since 2008 • 46465 Posts

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Sometimes the book may really be better, but I think most of the time, it's just the hipster thing to say. And people want you to know they're readers.

dave123321

I just have to shake my head at this stuff

You're not better than us because you read, Dave. :x

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
Which isn't to say that you can't prefer the movies in general, just that the hipster factor argument for the opposite opinion is very silly.
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

Sometimes the book may really be better, but I think most of the time, it's just the hipster thing to say. And people want you to know they're readers.

Pirate700

I just have to shake my head at this stuff

You're not better than us because you read, Dave. :x

It's not even about who prefers what.
Avatar image for Pirate700
Pirate700

46465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 Pirate700
Member since 2008 • 46465 Posts

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="dave123321"] I just have to shake my head at this stuffdave123321

You're not better than us because you read, Dave. :x

It's not even about who prefers what.

Dude, I'm joking...

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts
As someone who has been reading for a long time and watching movies based on books I have read for almost as long, I wouldn't say I was a hipster just because I thought the book was better. That word didn't exist back then and is only a recent addition to our lexicon. Books allow the author to create a world and the characters and give both depth. Movies have a set amount of time to introduce characters, flesh them out and tell said story. A movie can only tell so much of a story and characters and the world have mere minutes to be fleshed out. A good case in point are movies like Clear and Present Danger, Patriot Games and It to name a few. If you look at The Stand, it took 3 nights to completely tell that story or 6 hours and that book was 888 pages (the paperback form when first released). It is extremely hard to tell stories of that size in 2 hours or so without chopping up the book or removing a large share of it.
Avatar image for 0Hamburgher
0Hamburgher

957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 0Hamburgher
Member since 2010 • 957 Posts
Most of the time the movies are just made to sell, and I usually like the books better. I haven't read the fight club book, but I can't imagine that being better than the movie, or at least it would be very different.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#26 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

Really the only reason anyone does anything is to be cool and hipster. I am glad I have realized this, thank you OP

Avatar image for PannicAtack
PannicAtack

21040

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 PannicAtack
Member since 2006 • 21040 Posts
It's usually simply because the movie is going to have to cut things out in the process of adaptation. Like, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It's a great movie. But it removes some major things from the book, like with Brom's narration about the Combine.
Avatar image for Justforvisit
Justforvisit

2660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#28 Justforvisit
Member since 2011 • 2660 Posts

Most of the time the movies are just made to sell, and I usually like the books better. I haven't read the fight club book, but I can't imagine that being better than the movie, or at least it would be very different.0Hamburgher


Hey, psh....same goes for the books though, nobody writes them out of pure kindheartness :P

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]You're not better than us because you read, Dave. :x

Pirate700

It's not even about who prefers what.

Dude, I'm joking...

I am aware
Avatar image for Pirate700
Pirate700

46465

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 Pirate700
Member since 2008 • 46465 Posts

Most of the time the movies are just made to sell, and I usually like the books better. I haven't read the fight club book, but I can't imagine that being better than the movie, or at least it would be very different.0Hamburgher
The same goes for books. The difference is books can be as long as the author wants. Movies can't.

Avatar image for mattykovax
mattykovax

22693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#31 mattykovax
Member since 2004 • 22693 Posts
As a reader I like books. I also like movies. They are different mediums though. I will agree those who jump to " the book was better " all the time usually just like to sniff their own farts. That being said though it should not always be pointed out, the book usually is better. But some people dont read, or wont. Good example I thought for a battle royale ripoff aimed at teenage girls the hunger games was a pretty good time and I have watched it more than once. However even as an avid reader there is no way in hell im reading the books.
Avatar image for MetroidPrimePwn
MetroidPrimePwn

12399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#32 MetroidPrimePwn
Member since 2007 • 12399 Posts

The same goes for books. The difference is books can be as long as the author wants. Movies can't.

Pirate700

Really? Someone bring this news to Peter Jackson :P

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
Most of the time the movies are just made to sell, and I usually like the books better. I haven't read the fight club book, but I can't imagine that being better than the movie, or at least it would be very different.0Hamburgher
It was pretty faithful to the book save for the very last scene. Which was significantly better then the books ending.
Avatar image for DharmaMember77
DharmaMember77

2377

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 DharmaMember77
Member since 2010 • 2377 Posts

The film version of The Godfather is better than the book.

Avatar image for Justforvisit
Justforvisit

2660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#35 Justforvisit
Member since 2011 • 2660 Posts

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

The same goes for books. The difference is books can be as long as the author wants. Movies can't.

MetroidPrimePwn

Really? Someone bring this news to Peter Jackson :P



Somebody already did and he agreed, by leaving out characters and side stories ;)

Avatar image for mattykovax
mattykovax

22693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#36 mattykovax
Member since 2004 • 22693 Posts
[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]Most of the time the movies are just made to sell, and I usually like the books better. I haven't read the fight club book, but I can't imagine that being better than the movie, or at least it would be very different.dave123321
It was pretty faithful to the book save for the very last scene. Which was significantly better then the books ending.

Actually thats the one instance I would say the book and movie are either even or the movie is slightly better. But a good example of all of this is no country for old men. A great academy award worthy movie and peobably one of the best films of the last decade maybe all time. Also very faithful to the book. However read the book and you still realize how much depth, meaning and symbolism is lost in translation. One reason so many hated the ending was because the movie did not translate the symbolism of what anton was like the book did. Does that make the movie trash? Hell no, its just a great example that a visual media with time limits cannot hold the same amount as a book. As I said before its best not to compare the two and judge them on their own merits. Alternate title of this post.....how I learned to stop hating the shining......LOL.
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]Most of the time the movies are just made to sell, and I usually like the books better. I haven't read the fight club book, but I can't imagine that being better than the movie, or at least it would be very different.mattykovax
It was pretty faithful to the book save for the very last scene. Which was significantly better then the books ending.

Actually thats the one instance I would say the book and movie are either even or the movie is slightly better. But a good example of all of this is no country for old men. A great academy award worthy movie and peobably one of the best films of the last decade maybe all time. Also very faithful to the book. However read the book and you still realize how much depth, meaning and symbolism is lost in translation. One reason so many hated the ending was because the movie did not translate the symbolism of what anton was like the book did. Does that make the movie trash? Hell no, its just a great example that a visual media with time limits cannot hold the same amount as a book. As I said before its best not to compare the two and judge them on their own merits. Alternate title of this post.....how I learned to stop hating the shining......LOL.

Agree with all of this
Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23034 Posts

Man, how many times have you heard this? I'm not much of a reader myself, but literally every single person who's ever read and watched the movie and book to something will always say the book's better. While maybe the book is better sometimes, surely, I've never heard anyone say they preferred the movie in these scenarios.

Is this just hipsters being hip, or are books really that good? If so, why do movies even exist then?

sune_Gem

Books, as a general rule, are better in my experience. They allow for deeper, more complex messaging and more thorough storytelling. That said, they require more of a time commitment and a desire to engage in the strengths of books. Movies excel as bite-sized entertainment, allow for the consumption of a greater number of stories, and are great as semi-mindless popcorn entertainment.

Edit: I wanted to add this as well - Movies also excel as social entertainment, which is something that books generally lack (discounting book clubs and the like).

Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts

Well, books allow you to form and create the universe of the book as you imagine it, while a movie gives them a set form not everybody might like.
Justforvisit

There is a bit of truth to this. And when the movie is put into a form I don't like, I say: "The book was better."

Avatar image for dude_brahmski
dude_brahmski

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 dude_brahmski
Member since 2013 • 472 Posts

Though, I really do think that The Lord of the Rings film series truly excelled in its translation into film. That's a good thing, too, because I would have raged to no end otherwise.

Avatar image for Jimn_tonic
Jimn_tonic

913

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 Jimn_tonic
Member since 2013 • 913 Posts

Books are better. Your own imagination will always infinitly better than someone elses. It's just a matter if you want to invest the time it takes to read a book as opposed to a movie

Avatar image for applesxc47
applesxc47

10761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#42 applesxc47
Member since 2008 • 10761 Posts

My Literature teacher said that Fight Club is the one instance he's seen where the movie is better than the book.

Avatar image for PsychoRedFox666
PsychoRedFox666

2081

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 PsychoRedFox666
Member since 2007 • 2081 Posts

Often the film is watered down and an injustice to the book. The author may feel insulted over what was done to their work while people are often hard to please when aspects they enjoyed have been altered or removed entirely. Maybe read more books then see the films, then you'd understand why they care so much.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c8ff6a32bb23
deactivated-5c8ff6a32bb23

3185

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#44 deactivated-5c8ff6a32bb23
Member since 2012 • 3185 Posts
Most of the time it is true. When you read, you can open your mind and picture it your own way. When you see the movie version, you see how someone else saw it making it different than what you knew. That's my form of thinking when it comes to this topic.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#45 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

The film version of The Godfather is better than the book.

DharmaMember77

naw man. the film has no mention of sonny's big dick

Avatar image for mattykovax
mattykovax

22693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#46 mattykovax
Member since 2004 • 22693 Posts

[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]

The film version of The Godfather is better than the book.

Aljosa23

naw man. the film has no mention of sonny's big dick

The books creepy in the obssesion with that and the girl who gets surgery in vegas....lol
Avatar image for harry_james_pot
harry_james_pot

11414

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#47 harry_james_pot  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 11414 Posts
Well yeah.. In order to adapt something into a movie or a tv show, you get limited by budget and time. So they always have to remove characters and story lines, ignore a lot of the small details and back stories, and generally dump down the whole thing to appeal to a broader audience. So of course the books are gonna be better.
Avatar image for ultimameteora
ultimameteora

2573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 ultimameteora
Member since 2003 • 2573 Posts
I hate when people say that, don't they realize the movie is it's own thing.
Avatar image for campzor
campzor

34932

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 campzor
Member since 2004 • 34932 Posts
I have never heard this because barely anyone i know reads novels anymore.
Avatar image for th3warr1or
th3warr1or

20637

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#50 th3warr1or
Member since 2007 • 20637 Posts
Cases when the books are usually better than the movies are when the books are classics. E.g., Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Shakespeare, etc. Stuff that was pretty much already a huge hit when they were published as books.