All too often I have been told by someone that "the book was better than the movie." They are different mediums with vastly different qualities. As far as I can see, books are products of your imagination, which you already favor, and thus a movie inherently cannot compete with the book to a reader. Can someone explain to me what one means when they compare the two forms?
2006-09-02 07:25:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
First of all, usually, the book is the original. People usually like what they are familiar w/ better, so whatever they saw/read first, they'll like better. Second, the has all the full details, while the movie needs to summarize & make choices. Third, a book lasts longer...so you have more time to become attached to it & its characters. Plus, you can interpret/imagine however you like.
2006-09-02 08:05:20 · answer #1 · answered by Bonnie G 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Books and movies both tell stories. When a book tells a story, there's all the time in the world to develop characters, plot, etc. With a movie, you have 2, 3 hours tops. When they're telling the same story most movies can't complete with the complexities that you get in a story in a book.
2006-09-02 14:32:34 · answer #2 · answered by Duke of Funk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think because one has to use his/her imagination when reading a good book, you "see" the characters and their interaction from your own point of view. Then, if you see a movie that isn't presented as well as the book, or if its characters don't match what you "saw" as you read it, it can be a disappointment in comparison. Also, sometimes the movie plot varies too much from the book, and that almost always lessens my interest in the movie.
Of course, sometimes the movie is markedly better than the book (although very seldom, in my opinion), and then you really have a win-win situation!
2006-09-02 14:31:00 · answer #3 · answered by sunflowerjean63 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I always say this , because the book always seems to go more in depth than the movies. The book helps you to learn more about the characters. The movie sometimes is the complete opposite of the book like Harry Potter books explain more than the movies.
2006-09-02 14:35:12 · answer #4 · answered by danielle 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well in a book, the author explains in complete detail, yet in a movie sometimes you have to come along on the ride and assume what they are trying to get you to notice. So, I say that the book is better. yet they both could be good because the movie gives you visual information-like in the book the author explains something you don't undertsand, so in the movie you can get clear understanding. So, it's hard ta say. I vote book. I like books
2006-09-02 14:33:10 · answer #5 · answered by DannyBoy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me, when the movie is good, when it brings it's own interpretation of the subject matter, adds to it, or at least gives it a decent representation that's close to it's original form it's succeful.
If a movie is doesn't add anything of it's own to the book (the vision of the writers, the director or whoever), but simply charters the events of a book it is difficult for it to measure up. It has no value of it's own, so it's constantly compared to it's source material and found lacking.
2006-09-02 14:34:47 · answer #6 · answered by evil_tiger_lily 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the book is better because they also have all the charicters in them... in the movie they cut out some of the charicters. or they skip a few important points thinking that they dont need them... but there are a few acceptions to books and movies being alright... but there arent vary many
2006-09-02 14:39:20 · answer #7 · answered by Dont get Infected 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When I have said that, I generally mean that the movie is missing details from the book that were pertinent (in my opinion) to the story.
2006-09-02 14:32:27 · answer #8 · answered by just me 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋