Thread: The Book versus The Movie

In your opinion would you rather read a book before watching the movie? Or, would you rather watch the movie and then read the book? Do you find books are generally better than the movie?

I would rather read a book before watching the movie. I guess a movie just can't jam everything into it that a book can. Plus I miss out on the thoughts and feelings of the characters. I usually do like the books better than the movie, except for "The Notebook" by Nicholas Sparks. I loooooved the movie, but thought the book was only so-so. It might be because I watched the movie first, but who knows.

There is a new movie release coming out soon that I've been waiting so long to see. "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins is set to be released March 25, 2012. I'm so super excited to see it. The trailer looks amazing. I know it won't live up to the book, but I'm still hoping for the best. Here's the clip for anyone who's read the book and would be interested in seeing the trailer.

Normally, I read the book before the movie, the exception being The Lord of the Rings. I feel that the book is always better than the movie in most aspects, and the movie is better in a few others. There are a few where the book was great, but movie is out right horrible. Two examples that come to mind are Eragon and The Lightning Thief.

Yeah, it just depends on how well the book is adapted. The thing about books is that they often pack in a whole lot of filler that a screenwriter can cut without damaging the plot, which means that a movie can move better than a book (LOTR is a prime example of this). At the same time though, a movie can botch a book horribly in attempting to make it fit a certain timeframe or style of film. Then... yeah. Things can get ugly.

Personally, I think the book is almost always better, as if you think about it, only really good books usually end up as movies. And in books, you also get more character work (which does count as filler in moves, somewhat), and I love me a great supporting cast in an story. Would Scott Pilgrim have been that much fun without Kim?

The Hunger Games has hope, I think, mostly because of Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. I'm certainly going to see it at some point.

Ouch, that is a hard one to answer for me. Most times if I read a book first, I'm disappointed in the film. The reason is as you explained (everything can't be jammed into a film) and often times those little bits of information make the story better, fill the scenes out.

On the other hand, sometimes with pictures you get a broader view of the surroundings, you can see the weather, see people walking by, so see the background rather than a sheet of white paper behind the words.

Many times I've been disappointed by films, but other times . . . not so much.

The Stalker (directed by Andrey Zarkovskij - novel written by Arkadij Strugatskij - is a great film which worked for me. It is one that I have watched before I have read the book.

S

Originally Posted by beanlord56

Normally, I read the book before the movie, the exception being The Lord of the Rings. I feel that the book is always better than the movie in most aspects, and the movie is better in a few others. There are a few where the book was great, but movie is out right horrible. Two examples that come to mind are Eragon and The Lightning Thief.

Hey beanlord56. I agree with you on The Lightning Thief. I never read Eragon, so I wouldn't be able to say. I did like The Lightning thief, but it just wasn't as good as the book. Did you read that whole series? I only read the first book. I've meant to read more, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Originally Posted by Vertigo

Yeah, it just depends on how well the book is adapted. The thing about books is that they often pack in a whole lot of filler that a screenwriter can cut without damaging the plot, which means that a movie can move better than a book (LOTR is a prime example of this). At the same time though, a movie can botch a book horribly in attempting to make it fit a certain timeframe or style of film. Then... yeah. Things can get ugly.

Personally, I think the book is almost always better, as if you think about it, only really good books usually end up as movies. And in books, you also get more character work (which does count as filler in moves, somewhat), and I love me a great supporting cast in an story. Would Scott Pilgrim have been that much fun without Kim?

The Hunger Games has hope, I think, mostly because of Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. I'm certainly going to see it at some point.

Hi Vertigo. LOTR is Lord Of The Rings right? lol. Sorry... ;0). I loved those movies, but God, I think I'd be bored stiff trying to read through them. If you think the movie is better than the books, I'll go with that and assume I'm not missing much anyway. lol.

And I agree. I think Woody Harrelson is going to be awesome. I don't know why, but the part that got me the most in that clip was when everyone was in the town watching on the screen and Gayle was sitting all alone in the field with his knees pulled up to his chest. I'm emotional, and I LOVE Gayle, so that part almost had me in tears! ha ha. I can't wait to watch it.

Originally Posted by seyelint

Ouch, that is a hard one to answer for me. Most times if I read a book first, I'm disappointed in the film. The reason is as you explained (everything can't be jammed into a film) and often times those little bits of information make the story better, fill the scenes out.

On the other hand, sometimes with pictures you get a broader view of the surroundings, you can see the weather, see people walking by, so see the background rather than a sheet of white paper behind the words.

Many times I've been disappointed by films, but other times . . . not so much.

The Stalker (directed by Andrey Zarkovskij - novel written by Arkadij Strugatskij - is a great film which worked for me. It is one that I have watched before I have read the book.

S

Hello Seyelint. I guess I never really thought about all the extra stuff you get to see that they can add in a movie. If an author doesn't describe a scene enough, I guess a movie can play that out so you see every detail. However, I hate when a director adds a scene into a movie that wasn't even in the book. I hate when something happpens to a character that wasn't even hinted at in the book.

I wonder if that's what makes the difference in liking the movie more than the book. Seeing the movie first?

Well, as you said, when they add (sometimes I believe others opinions cause this) it can ruin a book's original story. But I like sound, I like those other senses being stimulated. I know my imagination can fill in most but I've seen writers write with only a few of the five senses which lessens the impact for me. Certain films I enjoyed more than books, hard to believe I know.

Interesting thread, great replies

S

Maybe it depends on the budget of the movie as well? Like Lord Of The Rings obviously had a very large bugdet and the special affects were amazing, therefore, making the movies amazing.

Now I'll talk about a book made to movie, that most people love to hate, but I love. (well the books anyway). Twilight. They didn't have a great budget to work with, therefore, the movie kind of stunk for special affects and the extras money can give to a big budget film. The meadow scene was stupid, it looked nothing like in the book. (Well, what I imagined it looked like anyway.) There was never a scene in the book where they went on class trip to a green house, but it was in the movie. (why add that?) It was stupid. They added a lot of stupid stuff, but so much was also cut out. I know for a person who didn't read those books, or love them, they would think the movie was stupid and not get the hype. I guess I would have loved the movie regardless of how it turned out. The bad budget, some bad acting, stupid added scenes, missing awesome scenes, but to see your favorite characters come to life, is awesome enough.

I have never read a Twilight book, nor seen one of their films (it is just because I don't like pretty-boy/girl vampires and such)

I have to respect the writer, well done on such a popular series.

Yes, I understand when producers and such add scenes for no reason(or they seem to have no good reason) Often I wonder why, but would have to secure a director/producer in restraints before their answer would no doubt come forth.

Oh I wish I could erase my mind just so I could read them over again! ha ha... I've read them all 5 times now, so I'm thinking I'll wait a little bit to read them again. ;0)

I hated vampires, I actually hated reading before my sister finally talked me into reading them. She begged for a month before I finally gave in. She pleaded one day, and hit the right spot. Telling me how much of a hopeless romantic I am, that I would fall in love! She was right. Love, Love, Love! ha ha

It's true. I wish they would say WTF they were thinking when adding something that had no business being in the movie!!! lol

often I hear it in the background playing on the television, but I walked in one day to a guy all sparkling and well that was enough to scurry me from the room. I am not saying they are badly written books, because I have never read the series, but with that many fans it must have appeal.

5 times :O that made me giggle.

Originally Posted by Sunny

Hey beanlord56. I agree with you on The Lightning Thief. I never read Eragon, so I wouldn't be able to say. I did like The Lightning thief, but it just wasn't as good as the book. Did you read that whole series? I only read the first book. I've meant to read more, but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

I thought Eragon was fantastic. Despite its astonishing similarities to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, I felt that it was still original. The film however made me vomit in a manner similar to when I saw aberration known as The Last Airbender. The Lightning Thief film had the same effect on me. I read all the Percy Jackson novels, as well as both books from the spin-off series The Heroes of Olympus that are currently out, and I loved them all. I would recommend the rest of the book, and Eragon, but the latter only if you're into unnecessarily descriptive, mega-high (not just high) fantasy.

And you've read Twilight five times? Pssh. I've read the first three Harry Potter novels at least ten times each. The other four, a maximum of thrice.

Seyelint.

LOL...Yup. 5 times. The way he sparkles is kind of cheesy, but hey, it's Edward. "This is the skin of a killer, Bella!" (said in my best Robert Pattinson voice!)ha ha... Beautiful skin that sparkles like diamonds - really scary!! ;0)

Hey, it's for Young Adults and it's good for me. I don't think I'll ever grow up!!! ha ha.... 2 hot supernatual boys (enemies by nature) fighting for the love of one lucky average looking girl... It's perfect. Edward can't touch her because he wants to drink her blood, but all he wants to do is be with her at the same time... The ultimate in Forbidden love. I love it. Forbidden love, it's a classic. ;0)

Hey Beanlord,

I think I watched Eragon once. Is that the one where the boy finds the dragon egg on the shore? lol.. I kind of remember it, if it is. I usually have to have some sort of romance in a book to keep me interested, so I'm not really sure why I loved the first Percy Jackson book, but I did. My best friend and my sister have the whole set and want me to read the rest of them. I will at some point. Hey, do you think they'll come out with any more movies for that series?

Depends. If it's Dickens I'd probably never read the book...

Bloggsworth, Have you ever read a Dickens book? I haven't.