Why is it that the movie version of a book is not as better?

Answer 1

Because "Novels" (books) are written in a "narrative" form (someone tell a story) and is hard to translate that into a visual form.

For example is easier to translate a "theater play" or even a "comic book" into a movie because they are written in a very visual way and it can be plaid by actors. But when a writer creates a novel he is probably not thinking on how it will look if made into a movie.

The second reason is time and practical reasons. When you translate a Novel into a Movie script you have to take into a account that every script page is a minute in a movie so the bigger the novel the more stuff they have to let out if they want to make a movie of 2 hour or less.

The third reason and more important is because Hollywood make a lot of junk; to make a good movie out of a good novel you need a good and talentesd script writer and director but unfortunately there are many bad ones in Hollywood; and in top of that studio executives always try to force their ideas of what "they think" is the best to get more money out of the movie even if the director tell them they are wrong.

Answer 2

For the most part, Hollywood has a tendency to dumb a book down to make the movie more accessible to a general audience. Another reason is that you already have a perceived image on what the book is as you read it. What you want to see on the screen is your own image and not what is usually put on the screen. But it is all opinion in the end, I like plenty of movies more then the books they are based on. Jaws, LA Confidential, and yes even The Lord of the Rings (I know people are going to give me death threats for those). The best way to like a movie, is go in with an open mind and try to block out what you already have pictured.

Answer 3

The only two movies that I think are equal are The Virgin Suicides and To Kill A Mockingbird. When you read a book, your own imagination makes the visuals. So when you watch the movie and see what some soulless person in Hollywood visioned, it tends to clash. Also think about how much detail is in a book along with thoughts, etc... So of those things are impossible to show visually.

Answer 4

I think it depends on the movie. If you look at Stephen King, who has had many of his novels made in to movies or mini-series, it depends on who made the movies. some, like Christine, or Misery, or Dreamcatcher, were really close. Then you have movies like Needfull Things, a 700+ page book made into a 90 minute movie. A movie that left a lot out of the novel.

Answer 5

Certain things are omitted and added when a book is turned into a movie. Plus, when you read the book version you picture in your head how you think everything looks, and usually it is portrayed differently than you imagined it when it gets thrown on screen.

Answer 6

Movie versions of books aren't as GOOD because they have to leave so much stuff out to make the movie an acceptable length. That means that things get cut out, and that's not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes they have to cut good, important stuff out.

Answer 7

Because a book allows you to use YOUR imagination and a movie presents a book to you from the DIRECTOR's imagination. Books also give you more details then movies do.

Answer 8

When you read a book you can imagine the setting and charectors as you want to from your own life experience. When you see a movie you're seeing someone elses interpretation. If it agrees with yours you like it, if it doesn't it's not as good.

Answer 9

Because they have a limited budget and only 2-3 hours to tell the story in. They can't get the details or the imagry right, and sometimes you just don't get the right actors, producers, or staff.

Answer 10

as better???
because it is difficult to condense an entire book into a few hour film. also, when reading you get to "imagine" the characters and how the story plays out instead of witnessing it.