because they have more detail
2007-01-02 07:04:32 · 38 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Well not always. But yes most of the time. When watching a movie you might get really into it but you still only get to watch others going through it. When reading a book you can be "in it" you get to experience their thoughts and feelings and get a feel of the inside point of view...like actually being in it!
2007-01-02 07:12:27 · answer #1 · answered by foolnomore2games 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not always, although that is usually the case. There are a few exceptions that prove the rule. For example, I just finally got around to reading "Red Dragon" by Thomas Harris, and I found the book kind of confusing. I thought the movie was much better; Ralph Feinnes and Anthony Hopkins (who will always and forever be Hannibal Lecter to me) both scared the pants off me in the movie, and the characters in the book just seemed crazy, not really scary. It could be my expectations were too high, after liking the movie so much, maybe?
There's only a few more I can think of that are better on film...
About a Boy, by Nick Hornby. Both the movie and the book are really funny, and really good, but they are very, very different. They start off the same, but about halfway through they go in completely different directions, and I actually like the story the movie tells better than the book.
The Color Purple, by Alice Walker. I found the book difficult to read because of the style of writing or something, but the movie is one of my favorites.
The Constant Gardener by John le Carre. I HATED this book... I thought it was downright boring. But the movie was excellent.
2007-01-02 07:17:21 · answer #2 · answered by Rebecca A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly. Films can and have done some faithful renditions of books. But no filmmaker can possibly include every facet of every chapter of a novel. Even when that portion of the book was worthy, there just isn't enough time. The hope is that they get the best and still remain true to the story and it's central themes. That the characters are portrayed without alteration and true to their natures. Books will always be better than their film adaptations.
2007-01-02 08:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by teacupn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
definitely unless the movie was made first.
I love the Eragon books but I refuse point blank to see the film. The "Narnia" film was crap and so are the Harry Potter films.
Although the Lord Of The Rings films were really good the books are a million times better. I can't think of any more films that I've seen that come from books, but I can say that Disney theme park rides make bloody fine films! (a.k.a Pirates Of The Caribbean)
2007-01-02 07:21:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usually, but not always. I read the book National
Velvet after seeing the film, and I thought the book
was poorer. I don't think this was just because I
saw the film first, though that certainly might make
a difference.
Books have the great advantage that they can
cover more time and detail, and that your imagination is likely to better than any film can be.
2007-01-02 07:10:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and you use your own imagination. I always find it very jarring to watch a film after reading a book I really like, because I'm looking through someone elses imagination/view of the story.
Some can be just as good though, I really liked the Lord of the rings films. But the worst I ever saw are 'Flowers in the attic' and 'Jurrasic Park 2' about the only relation the films had to the book was the title!!!
2007-01-02 07:09:53 · answer #6 · answered by fr3aky_lb 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes they are. I enjoyed reading the Da Vinci Code but didn't enjoy the film. I loved both the films and book of Lord of the Rings, and likewise am enjoying the Harry Potter books and films.There is so much detail that is often missed out of films which, if you have prior knowledge of the book, can leave you feeling cheated. I have to say that the editing of the LOTR trilogy was masterly - a lot was left out, but it was generally material that wasn't connected to the main theme.
2007-01-03 06:32:30 · answer #7 · answered by Mother Hen 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, because the film has to compress a book into 1 1/2 or 2 hours.
2007-01-02 07:34:51 · answer #8 · answered by Sean 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not in all cases no, some books are made much better when they're transferred to film, because it cuts out all of the stuff that isn't really relevant to the story, but in other ways with a book you can get a picture in your head about what's going on and the film may not match up to it. I guess it all depends on the book /film
2007-01-02 07:07:39 · answer #9 · answered by fozz89 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not always, sometime the book that a film is based on gives the basic idea for the film, and they elaborate on it in the film. The book Heart of Darkness that Apocolypse Now was based on isn't as good as the film.
2007-01-02 07:10:51 · answer #10 · answered by harvestmoon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, I think the books that are adapted to a film is always better in the book. Direction often change so much of the story line. In mannnyyy case bad acting, bad casting and bad bad direction ruins the plots. (like in the Da Vinci Code) In the book you dont have to put up with that. ^__^
2007-01-02 07:22:44 · answer #11 · answered by Steph☺ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋