Why in most cases was "the book better than the movie"?

Answer 1

When we read a book, our mind creates characters and scenes in relation to the way we would want to see them. If something is made to be beautiful, our mind complies to that desription. However, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that beauty is defined by our own standards, giving a much more vivid, compelling, and intruigiing image.

When we see the movie, however, that beauty is often made generic, so it does not capture our attention as much as we originally envisioned it.

Likewise, a comclusion dervived from my art classes:

When you create something, that initial sketch or drawing becomes sacred, and we are afraid to change it, even if there are better alternatives. The image itself becomes our ideal, and we do not accept an alternate idea, because we are afraid of change. This fear, of course, can be cast away, but only after much practice.

The same idea can be applied to movies and books. The initial image we create becomes sacred, because it was the way we originally saw it.

Answer 2

It's true that readers often feel disappointed in a movie when their perceived notions of the characters, settings, and flow of the story are not followed. This makes them like the book better. (I shall consider this a fact.)

My first theory would be that the books depend on the writer. Movies depend on a lot of people.

The success of a line delivered by a character in a book depends mostly on the words used, the way the sentence is constructed, and how believable the gist of the line is. We fill in the intonation, the expression, the body, the background, etc etc.

In a movie, the director may change the words, the actor may not be good, his intonation may be slightly different(which could change the meaning of the line), he might not have a believable expression, you might hate his face, you might be annoyed with his accent, the view over his shoulder as he is speaking might be distracting, the background music might be irritating, etc etc. All for a simple line. The movie has infinite ways to make a scene just-not-right. And a movie has a LOT of scenes. Lots of just-not-right scenes make for a sucky movie...following the train of thought? :)

The book can also say something like "the night seemed endless" which the movie might not convey properly.

Another theory would be that movies are only made after a great book. After all, why would you waste a load of money on making a terrible/so-so book come to life??

great book, great movie..roughly the same
great book, normal/sucky movie..book better! :)
normal book, sucky book... is it worth making a movie out of?

So the only way for a movie to be better than a book would be if it was a really bad book :( ,a bad book was made after the movie, or the movie was seriously fantastic.

Answer 3

Because once people read the book they have expectations. And when the director leaves something out they prefer the book. When you read a book you can create it as your own, it becomes what you want it to. With a movie most people percieve exactly what they see. Most people can't always see the same things in the movie that are also in the book. And when you personalize a book by reading it, the director could have seen something completely different thus it is not to everyone's likeing. What the director see's in his imagination is not going to be the same as everyone else's who read the book. That's the way it goes. And that's my two cents.

Answer 4

First of all because the book can go into more detail that is limited by the time the movie has to tell a story. A book can also tell you what certain characters are thinking. Also, sometimes movie makers change important facets of the story to make it "more marketable."

Mostly, however, I think it's because our imaginations, or the way we picture something in our mind's eye that we have read, is almost never the same as the pictures selelcted for us by the movie makers

Answer 5

because nothing is better than your own imagination...you have an idea in your head about what things look like, that most of the time arent even close to how the movie portrays it...also, movies cut out major parts of the story to make the movie flow the way the director wants to, generall its barely a representation of the actual book

Answer 6

1.There is more time and space for plot and character development, making a richer story in a book.

2.Your vision of the scenery and characters remains intact, rather than having it changed, as happens in a movie.

3.If the writing is good, the book is good. If any one element in a move is bad, writing, acting, directing, etc then the entire production is effected.

4.Reading gives you time to pause and think about/relate to the characters and plot rather than forcing you through the story to finish before the popcorn runs out.

Answer 7

Because the book most of the time was first then the movie....and in movies they leave a lot out.....and change it to make it "better" in there eyes

Answer 8

I find books explain more and are more detailed, as well as give you room to use your own imagination. Since movies can only be certain length, they are forced to cut many things that may have been important in the book.

Answer 9

Because when I read the book, I get to be the director of the film that plays in my own imagination.

When I watch the movie, I'm limited to the film that the director of the movie imagined.

Answer 10

In most cases, it seems that the makers take it for granted that they have an automatically good plot and an audience. They want to take their own tack, but the loyal readers want it to stay true to the book and often they forget to explain things or over-explain simple subjects.