are books always better then films???

Answer 1

No unless the film was created from the book. The book is always better. But original films just have more visual tools to give you.

Answer 2

It depends on the book or film. For example, my favorite book is "To Kill a Mockingbird." But it's also my least favorite film. But I have found that some of the newer movies do a really good job with special effects and stuff like that. So the movies these days are very entertaining. For the most part, I like books over the films, but sometimes the film is more entertaining than the book.

Answer 3

99.9% of the time books are better than films. Books allow you to give the characters faces from your own imagination while films you have to accept the character that the director has chosen. While this is sometimes nice our imaginations are much better at picking faces and people that we would like to see in these situations.
Also, movies do not have the time to go into characters back rounds as well and many of the books I have read have amazing characters that interest you almost as much as the plot. These interesting things can get lost when you try to shove them into a 2 hour movie.
I think most movies can not compete with the books that were their predecessors.

Answer 4

In my opinion, YES! Every time I have read a book and watched the movie that was supposedly based on the book I have been greatly diappointed by the movie. I am a sixth grade teacher and last year we read the book Tuck Everlasting and even my students agreed that the book was much better than the movie. When I read the Notebook I couldn't wait to see the movie. Although the movie was great, the book was even better! With a book you get to know the characters better and I think the book allows you to bring more of yourself to the story. Movies pretty much set up how you should feel in a particular situation. But with a book the way in which you read sets a lot of the tone.

Answer 5

Of all the books that I've read that became movies .. I can definitely state that the answer is the BOOKS are so much better than the films ... because ...

MY imagination, along with the words that the author is putting down on the page is so much more vivid than what any director could ever put forth on a piece of celluloid. Instead of seing a very unimaginative performance or poor directing or a bunch of Computer Graphics to hide the fact that the movie has NO relation to the book or story ... that is why I PREFER to read!

Answer 6

Yes, although there are some great book adaptations as films, because of the problem in condensing the plot of a book into 90 minutes you generally lose a lot. Where films can 'help' is if the actor playing a character really brings something new to it.

Answer 7

If you're talking about film adaptations of books, then more often than not, yes, the book far outweighs the film. For one thing, reading the book gives you your interpretation of events, characters, you visualise it, in a sense, the story is direct from the author to you, in that it's your response to his/her work. The book often conveys so much more depth of feeling and character development than the movie. Of course, this can be a necessity to facilitate a watchable length of a film, but still, you can miss a lot in the film versions, due to adaptation and time/financial constraints and the actors abilities in getting hte characters across. The only constraints when reading a book are the limits of your own imagination.

Answer 8

Depends on your imagination and how 'true' the movie is to the original book (unless the book, for once, is 'the book of the film', not the other way around).

I know my decades of reading and re-reading LOTR will now always be influenced by Peter Jackson - but a lot of his imagery tied in SO well with the books that it'll be hard to decide where 'mine' left off and 'his' started.

Many times, although a movie adaptation is good - your own imagination, picturing a scene, always differs.

And, as you get older and exposed to new knowledge or situations, your image of a scene or character in a book can change - the portrayal of the scene and character in the movie is 'fixed'.

Sticking to LOTR references - I met a "Gollum"/"Smeagol" person long after first reading the books. He had a good life and 'lost' it for a special type of selfishness/greed. It altered the way I view "Gollum" when I re-read the books - but can never change the way he is shown in the movies (quite well, but 'not the same' as I now "see" him).

Answer 9

I hate the way a film destroys the ideas you have in your head about what everyone looks like and all that. Take the lord of the rings, when ever I think of Frodo I see him from the film and not the hobbit i had imagined for over 20 years.
They always miss things out aswell, and you just cannot learn as much about a character in a film as you could in a book.
Books rule, they will always be better

Answer 10

Always in my opinion.
The Shining - good film, but book is much better and more scary.
Da Vinci code, not a patch on the book.

Ooh, just thought, there is one film that was much better than the book. The Shawshank Redemption, the book was actually a short story called Shawshank and Rita Hayworth Redemption (or similar)