what makes books better then movies?

Question

is it 'reading' instead of 'watching'? is the details from a book better then scenes on the screen? is it because books tell more then movies?

Answer 1

A movie based on a book is often said to be less entertaining than the book itself. Most of the time people read the book prior to seeing the movie, so their expectations are set by what was in the text.
Movies are rarely able to squeeze all the plot elements from a novel (which can take weeks to read) into a two hour script, so readers of the book are left feeling let down by the film. A good example of this is the Lord of the Rings series, where entire characters were left out of the movie version due to time constraints.
Also, as a person reads a book he or she forms a mental picture of the characters and scenery. It's rare that a given reader's mental picture will match a film producer's picture (or even another reader's picture for that matter) and so again the movie isn't quite what the bookreader had expected.
Lastly, filmmakers are often tempted to alter a book's plot or character development; they may do this to make the story fit better with the cast, or just because they wish to bring a different interpretation of the story to the screen. Again, people who have read the book will generally be disappointed by this tampering.
The next time someone says that movie x wasn't as good as book x, try seeing the movie first and then reading the book and see if you agree with them.

Answer 2

Reading is always better than watching!
In a book you are the making the movie in your head. You can imagine the characters and scenes how you see them. The book gives way more details and provokes thought and feelings that a movie can't. The movie shows you "their vision" of the details. The movie "cuts scenes" because of time.

Perfect example would be the Harry Potter movies. The books are better and have more details and such. The movies cut stuff for time and it can affect the movie overall.

I'd always rather read the book than see the movie. I usually see the movie afterward to compare them and see someone else's interpretation though.

Answer 3

Rankin3k got it right.

Actually, I would like to have you reword your question. It implies that books are ALWAYS better than movies. I'm not so sure that's true. Some not-so-good books have been made into excellent movies.

Novelizations of movies, on the other hand, are sometimes stiff, stuffed, and artificial.

And some really great movies (like my favorite of all time, Citizen Kane) were based on original movie scripts. Any novel based on them would likely come off as second-best OR become a totally new creation. Shakespeare's plays, most of them, were based on earlier works, but they remade the works completely. The originals, in most cases, have been lost or forgotten, or often are considered a completely different and inferior work.

A good novel, however, will usually have more details than a two-hour movie; it will have its own interesting and skillful use of language; it will develop a relationship between the speaker (first-person point of view) or voice of the author in subtle ways; it will engage or provoke the imagination of the reader in a different way than a film. In other words, it's just a totally different experience. Therefore, to a reader who liked the book, the movie based on the book will almost certainly seem second-best. However, if one doesn't like the book (an example for me is The English Patient--or Girl with the Pearl Earring), the movie may seem much better. Sometimes these days when I read a popular novel, I say to myself, "Well, its OK, I guess, but I have a feeling the author is really hoping this will be made into a move, so it reads more like a prospectus for a movie than a good novel."

Let's face it: novels are novels, and movies are movies. Trying to compare them is like deciding which you like better, apples or oranges. Some days I want to bite into a good, cold, crisp, tart apple; some days I want a sweet, juicy orange. I never expect one to taste like the other.

Personally, I just wish there were more and better original scripts for movies being written and fewer depending on previous texts. I never expected the movie version of Lord of the Rings to come anywhere close to my first experience in reading the trilogy. But then I spent the better part of a winter holiday (two or three weeks) reading the novels. The movies, long as they were, were altogether just a few hours; and curiously even that seemed a little bit too long for a movie.

But then script writers almost never become world-famous and rich, like John Irving or Dan Brown. So if I were a creative writer, I'd probably try writing the novel first and hope it got picked up by Hollywood.

Answer 4

Well I think one of mine would become a pretty good movie because a lot of interesting things happen (in my friends' and my opinion anyway) and because I think a lot of people particularly teenagers and young adults would be able to relate in some way to a lot of the things that happen and there's a lot of meaning to it even though there's a lot of sadness. It would probably be rated 15 because of some swearing, some drug use and sexual activity that isn't too graphic, as well as some scenes of violence. It definitely would have to be around 15 but if it follows the actual story and doesn't add too much into it then it wouldn't have to be made any higher. Another book/series I'm writing, well I think it would work best as either an animated movie or series due to the type of things that happen and the way I imagine it I think it would be better than it would be as a live action movie. That would probably be rated about 12 or 15.

Answer 5

With the book, you can get a lot of internal monologue. In a movie, it's awkward for the audience to know what a character is thinking. Also, books go into such detail that it's virtually impossible to have all the subplots and parallel episodes that are in a book in a film. Possibly the best book to movie I've seen would be The Outsiders, but still a lot was left out.

Answer 6

Details, details, details. . . When you are reading the book you get what the characters are thinking and feeling, and a lot of the times the movie leaves out a lot of stuff that the book has, for example the Harry Potter series, and some of Stephen King's books.

Answer 7

I have always been a fan of books over movies. When I read there is usually a 'movie' running in my mind of what I see for the scenery, people etc. For me that is why I love reading, I have the opportunity to use my imagination. Movies don't give you the opportunity to be an active part of the story as reading does. That said - I think the vast majority of books 'based on movies' are often poor compared to the movie.

Answer 8

Reading is always better than watching--you can create the characters and places in your head, and imagine it for yourself. Also, you get more details in a book, and more insight, than you can ever get in a movie. There's just not enough time to find out everything about the characters, and why they act the way they do, in a 2 hour movie.

Answer 9

I've never seen a book and movie by the same title that I would recognize as being one in the same. I don't know why there's such a difference, but you need to either read the book and don't watch the movie, or watch the movie and don't read the book! Of course, that's my opinion, but I have a very critical eye and I never find any similarity!

Answer 10

Books can go much more deeper than movies. There are so many literary devices that you just can't effectively convey on the big screen. Also with books you can picture it like you think it should be, with movies it is already made for you. There just isnt as much left for your imagination.