why are books better than their movie adaptations?

Question

if you have answers other than those that deal with imagination, please answer! but even if you do, that would also be cool :D ty!

Answer 1

Because there is no 90 minute time limit. Because your mind has no effects budget or casting budget to concern itself with. Because it is like the author's letter just to you, a much more personal experience.

Answer 2

first of all, if you read the book, you love reading. When you enjoy reading, a good book is wonderful. Books can hold more details than a movie, the author has to set the stage for ever event and your mind takes it all in whereas at a movie you might have missed the setup for a scene if you were looking away or focused on another part of the screen. And sorry....but yes your imagination creates the characters etc to look how you want them to. And no two people have the same imagination.

Answer 3

I think that books are better than their movie adaptations because there are certain things that are always left out in the movies that was included in the book because they are pressed to take this really awsome book and turn it into a tape with a time limit. I also think that they are better because movies are how one person views the book and what the movie producers think will sell while how you view the book and what you just read can be completely different. I also think that are better because nothing can take the place of your imagination.

Answer 4

It's not only imagination, but you can really connect with characters and story lines in a way you can't do with a movie. By watching a movie you see the other person going through the motions but by reading a book you put yourself into that position so you can relate more to the story.

Answer 5

1. So many more details in the books-the details make it amusing, and oftentimes what seems like a random detail in the story helps you understand what goes on in the end
2. Sometimes the the producer doesn't even read the book, so he/she can't help but interpret it wrongly
3. Less time to put in the good parts- they don't want the movie to be like 4 hours long (though I'd be perfectly willing to watch it for that long)

Answer 6

http://www.bookvsmovie.com/

Welcome to Book vs Movie

Welcome to the Internet’s premier location to compare one media or version to another.

Ever wonder which was better, the book or the movie? How about the latest movie that was really a remake of one made 20 years ago. This is your chance to find out from those who have seen, heard, or read both and find out what the differences are and which was better.

Fifth-grader Guido Girgenti couldn't wait to see the first "Harry Potter" movie and will probably see the second, which opens this week.

But something has been lost in the process.

"The first time I read the books I was imagining in my mind how I thought it looked," he said. "After I saw the movie (last year), all I could imagine was scenes from the movie. I don't really like that."

Fans of J.K. Rowling have long created separate, personal pictures in their minds from reading her Harry Potter stories. But the singular images of Hollywood, filled with special effects and beamed larger than life on theater screens, can challenge - and sometimes destroy - what readers imagine on their own.

Guido and about 30 other fourth and fifth graders at P.S. 3 in downtown Manhattan talked recently about how the "Harry Potter" movies - "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" - affect the books.

"Just like Guido, I love the Harry Potter books and I could imagine everything in my mind without having anybody tell me what it should be," said classmate Pace Lee. "After the movie I read the books one more time and I couldn't think of anything except the movie scenes.

"In the movie, there's the part where they're playing the gigantic chess game." But when Pace read the book, he said, "I thought it was more like they became the pieces, instead of (in the movie) when they're riding the pieces."

The more memorable the film, the more it can overtake the written story. Few reading "Gone With the Wind" could now follow the adventures of Scarlett O'Hara without imagining Vivien Leigh, even if novelist Margaret Mitchell described her heroine as "not beautiful." But few reading "The Great Gatsby" will confuse the title character with Robert Redford or Alan Ladd, stars in two inferior film versions.

Some readers can't be blamed for picturing a movie star in their minds. For publishers, the "tie-in" has long been a favorite marketing technique, using a famous face to sell hundreds of thousands books.

This fall, for example, Picador USA issued a special paperback edition of "The Hours," a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel being released as a movie starring Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and Julianne Moore, whose pictures appear on the book's cover.

"It's like putting a new book out entirely," says Christine Preston, director of publicity at Picador.

But some, including Rowling's publisher, resist an obvious connection to the film. Scholastic Inc., which releases the Potter books in the United States, does not have any movie stills on the covers of the two books adapted so far.

"The publishers decided the movie and the books were separate, and that Harry Potter was already well known without the movie," says Scholastic spokeswoman Judith Corman.

Some students at P.S. 3 are avoiding certain movie adaptations, or hoping one doesn't get made.

Chloe Harrison loved Natalie Babbitt's "Tuck Everlasting," but is staying away from the new film version. She fears "it will ruin the whole thing for me." Lindsay O'Neill-Caffrey, a fan of "Snail Mail No More," by Paula Danziger and Ann M. Martin, thinks a movie would be a bad idea because it "wouldn't be as good."

Should Hollywood stop making movies out of the Potter books? Guido Girgenti thinks they should leave it at two and let readers enjoy the latter novels on their own terms. But Pace Lee thinks the movies might as well go on - they help get more kids interested in the books, and they're great entertainment.

"Yes, the book is better," he says. "But it's fun to sit down in your seat with popcorn, Coke and see a movie."

Answer 7

i agree with ginger.. when reading a good story you can get involved with the charecters emotions etc.

Plus you get much more detail in the actual books and it is how the author wants the story to be told. Take Harry Pottor for instance - a lot of the story line has been cut to fit it into a movie context.

Answer 8

Because a movie is usually mainly one person's (or a few people's collective) adaptation of the book.

And that adaptation may be flawed if they didn't understand or if they misinterpreted what the author was trying to say in the story.

Answer 9

Movie gives the Director,s thought, on the book. It may be right or wrong. Secondly, the Author leaves much to the readers imagination, which are put on black & white, on the screen, which may not concur, with your thought. More-over, some thoughts can not be, as such, brought out on the canvas, exactly, as per it has been thought-out.

Answer 10

The only difference usually is the book has more "scenes" compared to the movie because books usually have no limit (money, time, etc.)

If you watch a movie, then read the book of the movie, it usually has different scenes and characters and things.

My opinion, 100x more work is put into movies than books.