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

[QUOTE="MetroidPrimePwn"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

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

Justforvisit

Really? Someone bring this news to Peter Jackson :P

He left out characters that he didn't think were relevant to his variation of the plot more so than cut them out due to time constraints. You watch the movie and realise that there's no Tom Bombadil in it, and by the time you're finished with the movie, you realize he was completely unneeded.

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

True unless they significantly change certain aspects of the book. For example, I Am Legend.

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

As a personal example I enjoyed reading the book Battle Royale a lot, and while I enjoyed the movie I felt that those who only saw the movie missed out on some of the character depth and attachment that was in both the Book and Manga versions.

[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

yes

[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]

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

Aljosa23

actually it does....watch closely when the girls are talking and laughing at the wedding

but its a very brief reference

[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]

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

Justforvisit

[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

edit: damn the quote got messed up. Too lazy to fix tho

[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

.

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

my personal observation is that the world and the characters in the book are  more fleshed out and richer than the movies can ever make them.

Usually when a film has been made from a book there is no way you can possibly include all the various details in the book. A lot of people say that 'the book's better than the film' because they usually mean there's far more bulk and complexity to the original storyline. 

However, like a play, a succint and well-written film is a beautiful thing. They are two different kinds of artforms.

Usually when a film has been made from a book there is no way you can possibly include all the various details in the book. A lot of people say that 'the book's better than the film' because they usually mean there's far more bulk and complexity to the original storyline. 

However, like a play, a succint and well-written film is a beautiful thing. They are two different kinds of artforms.

MissLibrarian

Long time no see.

Music is the great equalizer for me... A book turned movie can stand about the source material if the musical score is amazing... However this assumes the story isn't ruined in the process... So far I'm enjoying the hobbit more as a movie...jeremiah06

One thing I can give the thumbs up for on that film is defiently the soundtrack.

There are definitely instances where the books are better than the movies. The two most obvious franchises for me in which this is the case are Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. 

Well sometimes it is. I mean, sometimes a movie may cut out major plot points that were integral to the novel and make the movie's story fall short of it's novel counterpart and in that case then the book is WAY better than the movie. Maybe the novel has things that the person liked that the movie cuts out, maybe the person didn't like the transistion from paper back to the silver screen, maybe he got a better feel for the world and narrative out of the novel than the movie could ever hope to achieve.

There's a lot of reasons why a novel is better than the movie. Does that mean the movie is bad? No but in comparison to what it's trying to create it usually falls rather short.

The Black Cauldron...

There are definitely instances where the books are better than the movies. The two most obvious franchises for me in which this is the case are Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. 

Vari3ty

It depends on whether or not you read the book first. When you create the universe in your head, seeing the movie just completely shits on your source material. If you see the movie first, that can't happen but there's still so much more in the book most of the time that you'll still find it better.

If the original work was a book (eg LotR), then I prefer the way the author intended it. For me, the original author always take precedence. Movie versions tend to be constrained or butchered and should never be considered in any serious discussion of Tolkien's work.

Now, if the movie started out as the original which was followed by printed work such as books and magazines, then I prefer the movie. Star Wars is a good example. The movies came first followed by printed work such as sourcebooks (for board RPGs) which expanded on the Star Wars universe originally shown by the movies.

For example, I have a bunch of Star Wars sourcebooks like these. But, the original movies still remain my favorites:

well there's pretty much always more details and character development in the book because the movie is limited by time

Personally I thought the movie "The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" (actually both movie versions) was as good as the book.

Very rarely does a movie surpass the book it's based off. Let me give an example.

The movie IT was a mde for TV movie... It sucked.  The characters were poorly developed, we didn't learn anything about the town, Pennywise was poorly explained etc.

The book is easily one of the all time greats.  We get to know all the characters intamately, we get to know the town like it was our own, and we get to learn about Pennywise's origins very well.

Books allow for much more creativity/ great writing.  The Shining was a good movie, but it fell short of the book because it didn't capture the feeling of a slow descent into madness... It was very sudden in the movie, whereas in the book we really got inside Jack's head and saw his slow transformation.  Not only that but he was a far more well developed character.

I have seen movies where they are better than the books though.

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

couldn't watch it either, guess P. Jackson did a good job

How old are you to think that the movie adaption is better than the book?

Serious question. Books allow you much more freedom when it comes to writing. Adaptations suffer from censorship (occasionally) , "this needs to be changed to rake in cash", and overall lower the quality so that the brainless sheep can understand what is going on.

Pick up a book and read sometime.