|
Australia3818 Posts
Now, there have always been arguments here.
I want to see what you guys think.
Do you think that books are better than the movies? Or the movies are better than the books?
I guess there are cases for both sides.
LOTR, Harry Potter, Forrest Gump, The Hunt For Red October, The Last of the Mohicans and a whole lot more. Do the movies make the books look better in some cases?
I guess you have to take into account that books can't provide you with theme music or visuals...only in the mind I guess. Movies save you time also, instead of reading for a week or two, you see a movie in 2 hours...and are left more entertained (debatable).
Personally, I don't know what to think, as I really enjoy reading, but at the same time...some stories 'feel' better when they are portrayed on the screen.
Sure you can rule out as much character development in a majority of films that have been adapted from books...and perhaps the element of the story being skewed by the director...but whatever.
What do you guys think?
Poll: Books > Their movie adaptations?
(Vote): Books > Movie version of the book?
(Vote): Movie version of the book > book?
Edit: Another poll I guess:
Poll: Who reads?
(Vote): I read.
(Vote): I hate reading.
And another:
Poll: Would would rather see a movie?
(Vote): I'd rather watch the movie.
(Vote): I'd rather read the book.
|
depends but usually a well written book is better then the movie adaptation
first! ( just kidding >.>)
|
United States20661 Posts
LOTR I liked book better
HP I don't much like either
Forrest Gump movie is much different from book...
THFRO I only read once and saw twice, dunno which I like better.
TLOTM I never saw movie.
Dune book > movie
Not many book to movie adaptations are that great.
300! ahahahahahahahhahahahah
edit: the one where I think both are quite excellent - The Princess Bride. Great book, great movie, classic, all that.
|
the original novel is better than the adapted screenplay, in general.
exceptions for which an argument can be made otherwise include four of the five movies you listed above.
others that come to mind off of the top of my head are: a beautiful mind, a clockwork orange, silence of the lambs, requiem for a dream, the shining...
|
It really depends on the premise behind the book, how its structured, how thematic elements are developed, etc. Some things just don't translate well.
In most cases, movie adaptations are worse because producers and directors try more to find books that are popular or books they like rather than books that would translate well. And also, it takes a good deal of skill, and a different kind of insight than normal, for a director to be able to see the things that need to be changed, cut, and even added in order to convey the same ideas as well as implement them convincingly.
|
|
|
I don't believe there will ever be a movie better than the book, other than the many, many limitations of movies (time, budget, intention to earn money), there's also the fact that when you watch a movie - you're seeing what the director thought when he read the book as opposed to your own thoughts - that completely ruins it for me, so very much.
|
Terminator I think was a movie first, that was made into a book. Those don't count!
|
Books give the reader the chance to mold the setting into what they'd want to see. That's why, to a person who enjoys reading, a book will be preferred over a movie. Also, people who read a book before watching the movie might be disappointed because the characters/other details won't be what they pictured.
Personally, I'd take a good book over a movie. It involves the person a lot more than a movie ever could, and the little details aren't missing and are whatever you want them to be.
EDIT: I'm a big Harry Potter fan, and the movies were a huge disappointment for me. The first and fourth were alright, but overall I was not impressed. The only good book to movie adaptation that I can really think of is LOTR. I read the books first, and I gotta say, the movies were almost perfect. Had they included the scouring of the Shire, I would be a very happy person.
I think Fight Club wasn't that bad, either.
|
I like both, but books much better. I love the 'movie' that goes on in your mind when reading a book, that is what made the hobbit one of the most satisfying reads of my lifetime. (idk how to explain that, but w/e)
However, a well done movie can be better then the book it originated from, in some cases, but I just always think the original deserves more respect than what came after it.
|
On April 16 2007 21:54 Lemonwalrus wrote:
I like both, but books much better. I love the 'movie' that goes on in your mind when reading a book, that is what made the hobbit one of the most satisfying reads of my lifetime. (idk how to explain that, but w/e)
However, a well done movie can be better then the book it originated from, in some cases, but I just always think the original deserves more respect than what came after it.
Ah, the Hobbit was an excellent book. Looking forward to the movie, but apparently Jackson won't be doing it?
|
IMO, which is better (considering comics as books. I'm omitting dozens of titles, I'm sure):
Lord of the Rings: Book
Harry Potter: Movie
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Movie
From Hell: Book
Spiderman: Movie
Superman: Movie
X-Men: Movie
Fantastic 4: Movie
Batman: Movie
Catwoman: Book
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Book
V for Vendetta: Book
Sin City: Movie
Ghost World: Book
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Book
A Clockwork Orange: Book
The Shining: Movie
1984: Book
Fight Club: Movie
Interview with the Vampire: Movie
Book: 9, Movie: 11
pretty even. When the books were better than the movies, they were generally WAY better, and when the books were worse than the movies, they were only slightly worse.
|
The books take a lot more time, and have a lot more to do. I think a really good series would be able to match a book. For instance, if Peter Jackson had twenty or thirty hours worth of episodes to develop characters in LOTR and tell the story through an entire season or two of shows.
I think that is the best book to movie rendition I have ever seen though. As LOTR was simply some great cinema with a weak ending.. kind of Tolkein's fault on that one anyway though.
Movies, even ones as long as LOTR are still rushed to meet time lines & $ for the box office etc.. and cannot capture the true depth of some authors brilliance.
|
Has anybody ever seen the movie for Fahrenheight 451?
It is by far my favorite book, and I have read it quite a few times, but I am interested to know if the movie is good.
|
For me, 99% of the time, the books are better.
For example, if you liked Pursuit of Happiness (movie), you would like the book much more, especially if your whole premise of liking it was how he overcame such tremendous odds. The book actually expounds a whole lot more. I liked the movie, but it didn't do justice to what he really had to suffer through.
Once in a blue moon, the movie is better. One example is of LotR. For me, reading the LotR books was like reading an encyclopedia for the majority of the time until a major battle, and even then it was hard to keep your focus because it shifted scenes quite a bit. The movie left out some parts, but it was for the sake of time. Most of those parts weren't really that important in the book anyways, unless you wanted to really "get into the world of LotR."
And as some have already said, the Harry Potter movies were quite disappointing. That's probably only because it's rated PG-13 (I think) so kids could watch it too. I could imagine little kids freaking out after seeing what the book really describes Lord Voldermort to be.
|
On April 16 2007 21:59 Tadzio00 wrote:
IMO, which is better (considering comics as books. I'm omitting dozens of titles, I'm sure):
Lord of the Rings: Book
Harry Potter: Movie
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Movie
From Hell: Book
Spiderman: Movie
Superman: Movie
X-Men: Movie
Fantastic 4: Movie
Batman: Movie
Catwoman: Book
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Book
V for Vendetta: Book
Sin City: Movie
Ghost World: Book
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Book
A Clockwork Orange: Book
The Shining: Movie
1984: Book
Fight Club: Movie
Interview with the Vampire: Movie
Book: 9, Movie: 11
pretty even. When the books were better than the movies, they were generally WAY better, and when the books were worse than the movies, they were only slightly worse.
i know this is all subjective, but if you consider all those marvel movies better than the comics, you are obviously basing your opinion on very little. i can say the same for harry potter; as mentioned already, there is too much to incorporate into a hp movie that it is simply impossible to do justice to its paperback counterpart.
|
Australia3818 Posts
Has anyone seen and/or read 'The Power of One'?
It's based on the book by Bryce Courtenay...I really like that movie, I haven't actually read the book though.
|
On April 16 2007 22:00 MYM.Testie wrote:
The books take a lot more time, and have a lot more to do. I think a really good series would be able to match a book. For instance, if Peter Jackson had twenty or thirty hours worth of episodes to develop characters in LOTR and tell the story through an entire season or two of shows.
I think that is the best book to movie rendition I have ever seen though. As LOTR was simply some great cinema with a weak ending.. kind of Tolkein's fault on that one anyway though.
Movies, even ones as long as LOTR are still rushed to meet time lines & $ for the box office etc.. and cannot capture the true depth of some authors brilliance.
I don't know what your knowledge of LotR consist, but the ending of the movie isn't the ending of the story-line by Tolkein. I'm not flaming you, but I know a ton of LotR geeks who have read the "sequels." The "LotR trio" is simply just that. It's a three part series of one part of the story. There's other books like the Similarion (sp?) and War of the Worlds... I've been told many times that Tolkein intended on publishing much more... he just never had the time to do it. I've also been told that his son continued some of his works, but they aren't as big names. Again, I'm not a "LotR geek" though so I could be wrong.
|
IMO, which is better (considering comics as books. I'm omitting dozens of titles, I'm sure):
Lord of the Rings: Book
Harry Potter: Book
The Shining: Book
1984: Book
Fight Club: Book
|
On April 16 2007 22:05 Smurg wrote:
Has anyone seen and/or read 'The Power of One'?
It's based on the book by Bryce Courtenay...I really like that movie, I haven't actually read the book though.
i've experienced both, and i want to say that the novel is better. but maybe it's because i watched the movie during an english class four years ago. movies in class = sleepy time
|
United States20661 Posts
On April 16 2007 22:06 TheosEx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2007 22:00 MYM.Testie wrote:
The books take a lot more time, and have a lot more to do. I think a really good series would be able to match a book. For instance, if Peter Jackson had twenty or thirty hours worth of episodes to develop characters in LOTR and tell the story through an entire season or two of shows.
I think that is the best book to movie rendition I have ever seen though. As LOTR was simply some great cinema with a weak ending.. kind of Tolkein's fault on that one anyway though.
Movies, even ones as long as LOTR are still rushed to meet time lines & $ for the box office etc.. and cannot capture the true depth of some authors brilliance. I don't know what your knowledge of LotR consist, but the ending of the movie isn't the ending of the story-line by Tolkein. I'm not flaming you, but I know a ton of LotR geeks who have read the "sequels." The "LotR trio" is simply just that. It's a three part series of one part of the story. There's other books like the Similarion (sp?) and War of the Worlds... I've been told many times that Tolkein intended on publishing much more... he just never had the time to do it. I've also been told that his son continued some of his works, but they aren't as big names. Again, I'm not a "LotR geek" though so I could be wrong.
IIRC there's very, very little on Fourth Age [after events of LOTR]
Lots of prequels. Like, 13 books of them. er... 14. 15. yeah, 15 sounds right. 12 HoME, Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, Hobbit are all LotR prequel
|
On April 16 2007 22:05 tiffany wrote:
i know this is all subjective, but if you consider all those marvel movies better than the comics, you are obviously basing your opinion on very little. i can say the same for harry potter; as mentioned already, there is too much to incorporate into a hp movie that it is simply impossible to do justice to its paperback counterpart.
It is subjective, but I'll try to explain my positions a bit since you seem bugged by my opinions. For nostalgia's sake, I could say that Chris Claremont's X-Men, The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One, The old Superman comics with Ambush Bug guest starring, etc were better than the movies, but those would be very specific comparisons and heavily influenced by nostalgia. For my buck, in general, the movies were better sources of entertainment. The problem isn't that I'm basing my opinion "on very little," I'm basing my opinion on very much. The vast majority of Marvel/DC superhero titles are pure shit... sorry but true. The only reason Catwoman is better as a comic is the movie was such garbage (it is the only movie I've had to turn off after 15 minutes out of disgust).
As for other comics: Sin City I enjoyed the movie better than the comic, but I own all the comics and love the hell outta them.. the movie was just that good. V for Vendetta wasn't a bad film, but the book was that much better. From Hell was absolutely butchered to make it to the big screen... it wasn't even enjoyable for its own sake (ignoring any comparisons to the comic) despite the quality of its actors.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was an amazing book, but it possessed flaws that the movie lacked, and so I appreciate the film more. I hope they (the film's cast and crew) make sequels.
Harry Potter, I'm definitely in the minority, is not something I "get." I tried reading the books and watching the movies because friends and family suggested it, but both aren't something I'm interested in-- maybe I'm just not a fan of power-fantasies targetted at 12 yr olds... anyway, I prefer the films because it wastes less of my time.
Etc.
|
edit - whoops, double post!
|
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "To Kill A Mockingbird" yet. The book is undoubtedly fantastic, but the movie manages to transcend (largely through stellar acting on all parts, especially Scout and Atticus) a classic book and become something better. It's a good example that movies possess the potential to be just as good and intimate as books. Unfortunatley, most books made into movies are not of the same caliber "To Kill A Mockingbird," and the movies have even less effort put into making them excellent, or even keeping true to the story of the book. They are simply money makers ("The Da Vinci Code," "Catwoman," and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are good examples) meant to make a few bucks and be forgotten.
|
Personally, I find to books to be more enjoyable than their movie counterparts. Though there are plenty of movie adaptations that I enjoyed such as Lord of the Rings and several Stephen King stories that have been made into a movie or miniseries, there are some really bad ones out there such as the Fantastic Four.
When I read books, I get visuals so it's almost like a movie based on my own interpretation. It's not quite to that extent but even now when I recall certain books I've read a while ago, I can picture certain scenes and even the emotions I felt when reading a particular part of a book. Also, once I read a book while listening to a cd on headphones and now every time I think of that book, I recall the music I was listening to =p.
I mostly read fantasy/sci-fi novels along with the occasional new fiction book so that may have something to do with my take on things as well.
just my 2 cents
|
There are ways in which books can tell stories that movies can't. Some of these ways translate better to movies than the others. I think it really falls on the script writer and director to successfully adapt these things in clever ways. You really just can't take most books and plop it wholesale into a movie because of these things, length not withstanding.
On the whole though, I think books are superior to movies primarily for the fact that your so much more involved in the book because you supply everything and because of this you're also spending so much more time with the characters as opposed to an hour and a half as is the case with movies. This though, also makes books that much harder to fully appreciate.
|
Books are pretty much always better than movies because when you are reading the book you imagine it exactly how you would like it to be, so in your mind it's perfect.
One notable exception, though, was the Harry Potter movies, I think they did a good job translating it to the big screen.
|
I like books better than movies by far. The amount of detail that can be drawn out, along with a steady imaginative mind, far exceeds the powers of static visual and audio effects. A movie can be done well and provide ready entertainment, but it does not draw in the imaginative mind as a well-written book can.
That's my take.
|
Well, I picked books because I like the plot and character development, but for a movie like 300, reading it could never justify the movie.
|
On April 16 2007 21:59 Tadzio00 wrote:
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Movie
You're kidding about that, right?
Douglas Adams (RIP) is the best writer in this fucking world.
No chance in hell.
|
On April 16 2007 22:06 TheosEx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2007 22:00 MYM.Testie wrote:
The books take a lot more time, and have a lot more to do. I think a really good series would be able to match a book. For instance, if Peter Jackson had twenty or thirty hours worth of episodes to develop characters in LOTR and tell the story through an entire season or two of shows.
I think that is the best book to movie rendition I have ever seen though. As LOTR was simply some great cinema with a weak ending.. kind of Tolkein's fault on that one anyway though.
Movies, even ones as long as LOTR are still rushed to meet time lines & $ for the box office etc.. and cannot capture the true depth of some authors brilliance. I don't know what your knowledge of LotR consist, but the ending of the movie isn't the ending of the story-line by Tolkein. I'm not flaming you, but I know a ton of LotR geeks who have read the "sequels." The "LotR trio" is simply just that. It's a three part series of one part of the story. There's other books like the Similarion (sp?) and War of the Worlds... I've been told many times that Tolkein intended on publishing much more... he just never had the time to do it. I've also been told that his son continued some of his works, but they aren't as big names. Again, I'm not a "LotR geek" though so I could be wrong.
the silmarillion is wayyyyyyy before the lotr trilogy
|
The book is nearly always better, but reading books just takes a lot more time.
A book just challenges you more and triggers your imagination.
I watch movies of books when i think the book isn't that interesting and i have better books to read.
From the long list above, that would be:
Fight club
All comics, including sin city and gentlemen
Harry potter (although i'd rather be found dead than watch the movie also).
So book score way higher than movies.
|
I simply can't enjoy the movie if I've read the book.
It's also hard for me to sit through modified plots, I can't stop myself from incessantly whispering "Oh, they changed that from the book" or "oh they left a major part out" and I know how annoying that can be.
Luckily, school/work/occassional-gf has kept me from leisure-reading much in recent years.
|
I know. Isn't the Similarion or whatever an introduction on how the world was created? Anyways, I was just stating that there were more books than just the LotR series.
|
On April 16 2007 22:10 Last Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2007 22:06 TheosEx wrote:On April 16 2007 22:00 MYM.Testie wrote:
The books take a lot more time, and have a lot more to do. I think a really good series would be able to match a book. For instance, if Peter Jackson had twenty or thirty hours worth of episodes to develop characters in LOTR and tell the story through an entire season or two of shows.
I think that is the best book to movie rendition I have ever seen though. As LOTR was simply some great cinema with a weak ending.. kind of Tolkein's fault on that one anyway though.
Movies, even ones as long as LOTR are still rushed to meet time lines & $ for the box office etc.. and cannot capture the true depth of some authors brilliance. I don't know what your knowledge of LotR consist, but the ending of the movie isn't the ending of the story-line by Tolkein. I'm not flaming you, but I know a ton of LotR geeks who have read the "sequels." The "LotR trio" is simply just that. It's a three part series of one part of the story. There's other books like the Similarion (sp?) and War of the Worlds... I've been told many times that Tolkein intended on publishing much more... he just never had the time to do it. I've also been told that his son continued some of his works, but they aren't as big names. Again, I'm not a "LotR geek" though so I could be wrong. IIRC there's very, very little on Fourth Age [after events of LOTR] Lots of prequels. Like, 13 books of them. er... 14. 15. yeah, 15 sounds right. 12 HoME, Silmarillion, Children of Hurin, Hobbit are all LotR prequel
Are the prequels any good? I've read the Hobbit, but never heard of the others. Silmarillion sounds familiar, though.
|
To be honest, I haven't read any of JRR Tolkein's books all the way through except for the Hobbit. It was the only one that was interesting to me.
|
On April 17 2007 00:02 TheosEx wrote:
To be honest, I haven't read any of JRR Tolkein's books all the way through except for the Hobbit. It was the only one that was interesting to me.
Damn, I was hoping that was typical-Tolkein >< Woulda run out and bought another
ed - sp
|
On April 16 2007 23:36 One Page Memory wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2007 21:59 Tadzio00 wrote:
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Movie
You're kidding about that, right? Douglas Adams (RIP) is the best writer in this fucking world. No chance in hell.
Not kidding. Considering that Adams was the screenwriter for the film I don't see what you're panicked about. Everytime Adams adapted the Hitchhiker's Guide for a new medium it changed. As groundbreaking as the books were, I can't help but see the books as a second draft (the radio version being the first draft)-- and the typos in the books really help with that image. The movie, on the other hand, was practically flawless in concept, casting, editing and execution-- only failing if you stubbornly demand that the film follow the books in every minute detail.
|
Sydney2287 Posts
To me it is not such a simple thing as, do you prefer movies over books, or vise versa. Instead I believe that *generally* the original medium of the story is the most interesting and most effective at conveying its messages/story. This is not to say that only the original medium can be the only interesting or effective method, as I can think of examples where both the original and it's conversions are good (Hitchhiker's Guide, book and movie were great, though the book is better)
Partly why I believe this is so is due to the fact that a story is written with the medium in mind. For example going from book to movie, with Hitchhiker's Guide again, there are just some things in the book that made it as funny as it was that you can't do in a movie (e.g. the digital wristwatch running joke). Similarly in movies, visual effects are used to emphasise parts of the story, visual effects that you can't describe in a book, e.g. camera angles.
As I said before, books and movies aren't the only things. Have you ever played a 'Game Movie'? For example, Spongebob Squarepants: The Game (Whatever its title is, it sucks)? These are usually poor quality games, and I believe it has a lot to do with the transfer of the story between mediums.
All that said, there is the concept that stories exist in their own universes (e.g. the Starcraft Universe, or the LOTR Universe) and to tell different stories in the same universe through different mediums is definitely possible and works well.
EDIT: In Summary, the original medium is almost always the best, and for me the decision between book or movie (I'm now talking about different stories on different mediums) depends on what I want out of it at the time.
|
generally people say books are better than movies, however from the few books i've read that has ended up as movie adaptions, i've liked the movies better. this includes 25th Hour, fight club and lotr.
I can't believe how anyone can say the book format of fight club was better than the movie. I mean sure, the book was great, no doubt. However the movie adaptation is the book on steroids. they basically cut all the bullshit from the novell, used all the best parts and amplified them times ten.
|
meh movies>books cept for some tutorial / knowledge books(basically for work use). i dont' read non-fiction/fiction books; limited english voc -> me or it's just not my hobby :<.
|
Russian Federation1401 Posts
I would say that 99% of books > the movies but there are some exceptions for me.
I personally found 2001 Space Odyssey too tedious for my liking whilst the movie I enjoyed quite a lot.
|
On April 17 2007 03:17 HeMaN wrote:
generally people say books are better than movies, however from the few books i\\\'ve read that has ended up as movie adaptions, i\\\'ve liked the movies better. this includes 25th Hour, fight club and lotr.
I can\\\'t believe how anyone can say the book format of fight club was better than the movie. I mean sure, the book was great, no doubt. However the movie adaptation is the book on steroids. they basically cut all the bullshit from the novell, used all the best parts and amplified them times ten.
If you gonna tell me that Lotr films are better as the book i must really wonder.
Books are in 99% always better since they they have the possibility to go way deeper into details and forces you to use your phantasie, way better as a interpretation of a Regisseur
|
Movie > Book:
Kubrick:
Spartacus
2001
Clockwork Orange (though Wendy Carlos deserves the lion's share of the credit)
Full Metal Jacket ("The Short Timers" is still a great read, though).
The Shining
Others:
Fight Club
Silence of the Lambs
Stalker (Russian)
Battlefield Earth - the movie mercifully truncates the book one third of the way through. Yes, I've read the whole thing.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On April 16 2007 21:50 ~AreS] wrote:
Books give the reader the chance to mold the setting into what they'd want to see. That's why, to a person who enjoys reading, a book will be preferred over a movie. Also, people who read a book before watching the movie might be disappointed because the characters/other details won't be what they pictured.
Personally, I'd take a good book over a movie. It involves the person a lot more than a movie ever could, and the little details aren't missing and are whatever you want them to be.
EDIT: I'm a big Harry Potter fan, and the movies were a huge disappointment for me. The first and fourth were alright, but overall I was not impressed. The only good book to movie adaptation that I can really think of is LOTR. I read the books first, and I gotta say, the movies were almost perfect. Had they included the scouring of the Shire, I would be a very happy person.
I think Fight Club wasn't that bad, either.
I agree with pretty much everything you said ^^
For me, books > movies most of the time
Though for LotR, book = movie
If you've read the book first and liked it, chances are, you're probably not going to like the movie since your expectations are so high.
|
On April 17 2007 14:57 defenestrate wrote:
Movie > Book:
Clockwork Orange (though Wendy Carlos deserves the lion's share of the credit)
aww cmon. The movie was good, yes, but the book was way better. So much more philosophy and depth. And the language.
|
I've never seen a movie version of a book i've read so I can't answer the first poll. There should be an option for 'I don't know' people are probably just choosing Book>Movie just because what most people say on the issue.
|
i think film and literature are really far seperate from each other. the two mediums have their advantages in their ability to express the art. the beauty of one wont really translate to the other, which is why great books wont really make great movies, and great movies wont really make great books.
that said, whenever someone says that they think the fight club movie is better than the book i usually think they are either stupid or havent read the book.
|
On April 17 2007 15:25 Storchen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2007 14:57 defenestrate wrote:
Movie > Book:
Clockwork Orange (though Wendy Carlos deserves the lion's share of the credit)
aww cmon. The movie was good, yes, but the book was way better. So much more philosophy and depth. And the language.
Reading about music does not compare to hearing the music. Yes, the book is deeper. The movie is my favorite, though, while I can think of several dozen better books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
