To read or not to read, that is the question.?

Question

I would like some educated input on whether it is better to sit with a good book or watch a well made movie. To make my case I'll throw out some examples. Consider the character "Hannibal Lector", in the books by Harris, you can dismiss him to a degree, Anthony Hopkins' live screen version of him makes your skin crawl with his excellent portrayal of the lunatic anti-hero. My favorite book as a child was "Stuart Little" a wonderfully charming book that was bastardized on the silver screen to make a dollar and so detracted from the original story that it was unrecognizable without seeing the credits. The jury is still out on "Lord of the Rings" as I was captured by the visual beauty of the films but disappointed by the missing material and characters. Any thoughts?

Answer 1

My opinion is that is it more educational to read a good book and more entertaining to watch a good movie - so, my input would be to ask yourself - are you trying to nourish your mind or take some time off? :)

Answer 2

I believe if there is a movie being released of a book, I will see the movie first, then read the book. If I do the opposite first, I am almost always disappointed in the movie. This was the case with Dune by Frank Herbert. I felt there was absolutely no way the movie people would be able to get all the nuances of thought in the book into the film, and I was right. Some books translate well to the screen, others do not. I think it is best if one considers books and movies as two different art forms and attacks it from that perspective. The book is almost always better than the movie. A few exceptions I can think of where the movies were almost as good as the books are The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile and Lonesome Dove. The Thornbirds came close, but didn't quite hit the mark. All of these adaptations were excellent makes of the material because they stayed true to the original material.
So, to answer your question, read a great book before watching a movie.

Answer 3

I think whether it is "better" to read a book or a movie depends on what you are looking for.

Personally, I think books are the better choice because they challenge your mind and your imaginating. Movies are passing, while reading is active. You think to imagine what the characters and settings look like. Those visuals are all filled in in your head, while a movie gives them to you. Also, reading is a great educational experience and can help improve your vocabulary.

Since movies are more passive, they have a different place. I love them to relax with after a long day, when I can be "captured by the visual beauty" and the way the actors portray the characters. I read to lose myself and become immersed in a story.

Generally, if you compare a movie and the book it was based on, the book will always be superior. As much as it may have been disappointing to miss the content from "Lord of the Rings" can you imagine how long the movies would have been if they put in every side story that was in those books? They would have been completely unwatchable in theatres.

If I could only have one, books or movies, I would pick books every time. They just have more benefits.

Answer 4

I agree with you when the film is good. Since book and film are different media, we do not get the same from them. A movie will provide wonderful scenery (Lord of the Rings, for example) and great actors will give a strong representation of character that will stay with you afterwards when you read the book (Judy Garland as Dorothy in Oz).

In other cases, however, even though the images may be spectacular, your mind can do just as fine a job, and the author provides a better developed story (e.g. Jurassic Park).

For me, the question is never asked for long: to read or not to read? To read, definitely. I love movies, and will always go see a movie when I've read the book. However, if I know a movie was based on a book, I will not let it go at that, and will hunt down the book after the movie.

Answer 5

Nearly every time I saw a movie after reading the book I was very disappointed. Scenes that I thought would be significant weren't in the film version.
Usually if I see a movie and it is based on a book I will read the book after so I get the full story.
There was only one time that I recall that the movie was longer than the story. The Man Who Would be King was a great movie based on a very short story by Kipling. Other than that I prefer the book versions.

Answer 6

It depends. Some movies were made beautifully on the books, and even made the books a little easier to understand. Like, personally, if anyone's ever seen Girl, Interrupted with Winona Ryder as Susanna Keyson. I loved the book, it was great. But the movie kind of stitched everything together for it. In my mind, they complimented each other.

Now, on the other hand. The Harry Potter movies. The first 3 were ok. And I stress the word ok. They left out some interesting points, but you could still follow it. The fourth one left ALOT out. It seemed to me, that anyone who hadnt read the fourth book would have no idea what was going on in the movie.

So, I would personally read the book first if your looking for some stimulation, or if you just want to kind of chill and relax, go for a movie, but not one of the bad ones. Something well made.

Answer 7

It's been my own experience that books are better than movies. Of all the books I've read that were made into movies, only one movie was better than the book, because they gave the movie a happy ending, which I liked, and the book was rather sad. It's difficult to take a great book and make a movie that hasn't changed the story line, or the characters.

Answer 8

In my experiences the book has pretty much always been better than the movie. The movie always tends to leave big pieces of the plot out or an important character or something else that leaves a big hole in the story line. Of course in the movie they sometimes will create this beautiful scenery but your mind can also do that for you while reading the book. So as for your question "to read or not to read" definitely read.

Answer 9

Personally, I would prefer not to see some of the movies made from popular books. The movie tends to delete emotions I felt while reading the story. I do have to put "To Kill A Mockingbird" with Gregory Peck in a different light than most movies made from novels. I think it is probably the only movie to recreate all the intricacies of the story well. So, I decided not to see "The Da Vinci Code." The book is better.

Answer 10

I agree with you on the "lord of the Rings" as I also greatly enjoyed the movies. However as good as they were they couldn't match the depth of those and his other books. The "Silmarillion" for an example would be almost impossible to do as a movie.
Whereas an exellent actor can turn a mediocre book into an awesome movie. So I guess my anwser would be you can't generalize, each movie and book would have to be examined on a case by case basis.

Answer 11

I like to read a book and then if they make a movie of it, go to see it. I am really disappointed in the movie, however, if they change it from the book as they did in Hannibal. But several movies follow the book closely and that's really enjoyable to me.