Recommended Posts

Just thought it would be interesting to find out which is generally thought to be better.

books / movies

[Edit] removed the long book/movie list because it made the discussion a bit closed [Edit]

Columbus

P.S-MODS, Please make this a POLL for Books vs Movies, thanks.

Edited by Columbus019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Clockwork Orange

Blade Runner

Die Hard

Fantastic Mr. Fox (A personal favorite of mine by Wes Anderson)

Field of Dreams

Fight Club

Forrest Gump

The Godfather

I Am Legend

I, Robot

Jaws

Planet of the Apes

The Shawshank Redemption

The Shining

The Silence of the Lambs

To Kill a Mockingbird

Watchmen

2001: A Space Odyssey

The list goes ever on...

Edited by Sir Gareth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Potter: books for sure. The first two are the only that really are fully comparable to the books in my opinion. I still love them all but could've been better in parts. I could go on forever about that.

Lord of the Rings: this is hard to say. I love the books, I really do. However, they're not exactly enjoyable to read, for me. So I'm inclined to say I enjoy he movies a bit better because they capture just about everything major from the books except for the scouring of the shire.

The Hobbit: Jesus, these movies are horse shit. The book is an amazing classic that I love to read. I was, and still am, so very disappointed with how these turn out. I will never watch them again unless it's the fan book cut online, and even then I'm hesitant.

Hunger Games: hm....I like the books, but I thought all the movies were pretty great too. Plus the score is amazing! Hard to honestly say.

Chronicles of Narnia: confident in saying the movies...honestly I was disappointed when I read the books. They were kinda boring and too childish (I know, I know, they're kids books) but I also found Lewis wasn't particularly very good at describing things. It always felt like he was a minimalist. I also wasn't exactly a fan of the religious symbolism that was shoved down our throats, but to each their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention a handful of titles by Tom Clancy, John Grisham, Arthur Conan Doyle and Ian Fleming, uh Shakespeare, The Bible, Nicholas Sparks romance novels (I swear, there must be like 20 movies just from his oeuvre alone), and anything based off of a fairy tale, each of which has multiple film versions. There is simply too vast a body of work and an impractically huge number of authors.

Oh, and comic books are books, too.

Methinks the topic a little broad for definitive discussion. Or are we supposed to talk about Dan Brown, Jane Austen, and Garfield in the same topic? Heck, there are some in my family who could go on for hours discussing which version of Pride and Prejudice (counted in hours) is preferable based on casting alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah my mother could go on for hours about every variant of Pride and Prejudice she has ever seen. I can recall at least four she has watched: Newer Theatrical Film with Keith Knightly, 4-5 Hour long BBC Film, Provo Utah Pride and Prejudice (not joking), and Bollywood Pride and Prejudice. :P I don't get it, but she loves them like crazy.

Oddly enough she has yet to see the zombie version:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure generally the books are usually considered to be better than the movie. While I love both the movies and books of Harry Potter, Hobbit, Tintin, etc., the books are usually able to include more detail than a movie which needs to tell its story visually in under 3 hours ever could. However, there are exceptions of course. I haven't read Jurassic Park, but considering no one ever really talks about the book while the movie is a timeless classic, I'll have to assume that the movie is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By and large, with Harry Potter, I prefer the books, except Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows. OoTP the movie worked much better at telling that story than the 900-page book did IMO, and I didn't like book 7 or movies 7-8.

Narnia: Books by a large margin. 1st movie is good, 2nd is generic action flick, 3rd is really really boring.

This is not on the list, but The True Meaning of Smekday is 10000 times better than it's Disneyfied version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, movies can't hold a candle to books. Most of the time, I enjoy the movies well enough, in between the snickering when thing are way off. Movies do a pretty damn good job of adapting though. That being sad...

I absolutely hate the butchering of the Maze Runner books. Watching the Scorch Trials was rough. I would've enjoyed the movies far more had I not read the books first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure generally the books are usually considered to be better than the movie. While I love both the movies and books of Harry Potter, Hobbit, Tintin, etc., the books are usually able to include more detail than a movie which needs to tell its story visually in under 3 hours ever could. However, there are exceptions of course. I haven't read Jurassic Park, but considering no one ever really talks about the book while the movie is a timeless classic, I'll have to assume that the movie is better.

Yes, I often think how such and such a scene in a book would be in a movie an think that it would be bad. Acctually, the book of Jurassic park is brilliant due to the fact that robert muldoon (my favorite character) survived.

Columbus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like others have said previously, the source books almost always have more depth and a better story than movies/TV shows since, at the end of the day, the latter are just adaptations. It all depends on whether the adaptations are able to capture the best/most important plotlines of a book; i.e. sometimes it's better to not include a really complex part of a book for interpretation reasons.

In contrast, film and television tend to romanticize the story more often than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Vindicare: YES! The only young adult dystopian movie adaptations I've watched are the Maze Runner's (read the other two popular trilogies... didn't much like them) and the second one is pretty awful, both as an adaptation and an actual movie. Also, The Giver as an action flick. :facepalm: That sucked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience it is rare for film as a medium to surpass the written works which inspire them. The two media convey their narratives in different ways and it just so happens that books convey more. Mostly because the written word has to fill in the gaps for lack of visual narrative modes. But unlike movies, books have had centuries to get their craft down.

All that being said on occasion there is a rare piece of cinematic brilliance that far outshines the book it is based on.

I would contend The Last of the Mohicans (1992) is one of those few gems that fits that bill. The pacing of the story is much improved by the film and the characterization is far more engaging, in particular, that of the eponymous Mohicans. The musical score also helped drive the mood in every scene the cinematography conveyed just as much weight as any line being uttered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think books surpass movies in some areas because of one of the reasons said by Japanbuilder.

The two media convey their narratives in different ways and it just so happens that books convey more. Mostly because the written word has to fill in the gaps for lack of visual narrative modes.

Not to mention that amazing books with interesting themes & ideas are often butchered into mediocre films because of whitewashing or directors not understanding what makes the source material so appealing, misrepresentation of minorities & choosing to add unnecessary subplots such as the romantic subplot between a heterosexual couple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience it is rare for film as a medium to surpass the written works which inspire them. The two media convey their narratives in different ways and it just so happens that books convey more. Mostly because the written word has to fill in the gaps for lack of visual narrative modes. But unlike movies, books have had centuries to get their craft down.

All that being said on occasion there is a rare piece of cinematic brilliance that far outshines the book it is based on.

I would contend The Last of the Mohicans (1992) is one of those few gems that fits that bill. The pacing of the story is much improved by the film and the characterization is far more engaging, in particular, that of the eponymous Mohicans. The musical score also helped drive the mood in every scene the cinematography conveyed just as much weight as any line being uttered.

Time is the biggest hurdle for a book to movie adaptation. A book doesn't exactly have restraints, as I own 1,000 page books. A lot of time it's hard to pack all the info into a 2+ hour movie. Generally, I think studios do a good job of it. But I've seen some instances of movies changing or omitting big parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to choose between watching a movie and reading a book, I'll probably watch the movie. Not solely because I'm lazy (although I am pretty lazy, but because I'm more of a visual person than a language person. I enjoy great cinematography and 'feeling' the movie. Ie.I'm not allowed to watch Jurassic Park or Inception unless I'm the only one at home, because their soundtracks will literally shake the entire house's walls. I love that and I don't even watch films at particularly high volume.

I think it's easier to debate that the epic sized stories are better as a book than a movie, because it's just not possible to fully capture the entire story in 2-3 hours. Chunks of the story line will have to be lost unfortunately.

Here are some stories I've both read and watched:

Contact - I first saw this film as a kid and I loved it. Rewatched it several times again as an adult and read Carl Sagan's original book recently. They are very close in quality, but with some key differences at the end and fewer characters in the film. I like the portrayal of the main character in the movie more. If you absolutely hate romance, the book is probably the way to go. For me, the movie wins out just barely, but I'll probably read/watch them both again.

Marathon Man - The movie actually very very closely follows the book. It just misses a bit of background on a character near the start. The movie has a different, and in my opinion, more satisfying ending. The movie just barely surpasses the book, based on the change at the end.

Wizard of Oz - I cannot stand the 1939 movie and most musicals in general so the movie loses out big time for me. People seem to not know that L. Frank Baum wrote just over a dozen Oz books, not just one. The books often had a slightly darker tone to them, which is characteristic of many childrens books in the 1800s (think of fables and the often dark nursery rhymes of old).

Return to Oz - based on the second and third Oz books. I love this movie adaptation of the two L. Frank Baum Oz books. Definitely different from the books since it is merging two together. Super underappreciated film, despite being closer in tone than the famous Garland version.

Jurassic Park - I haven't read this yet, but I purchased the book last week. I've heard excellent things about it so I look forwards to reading it. I'm expecting greater insights into the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general I think a fair share of books are better than movies, but admittedly movies sometimes do surpass them. Movies have the distinct advantage of being crafted by many, whereas books are written by just a few. This can allow movies to exceed the limitations of just one mind, creating plots and visuals that just one person might not have been able to imagine for themselves. At the same time this collective dream of many people can often be disjointed and pulled down by the weaker links in the creative chain.

I've read Jurassic Park, the movie is way better. The book is good, but it is ultimately bogged down by tedious plot elements and unlikable characters (Seriously, you might start rooting for the Dinosaurs after listening to these characters argue). The book takes a long time to even start, having an entire subplot unfold before the park is even introduced. Several chapters focus on the technical systems of the park. Nothing says fun like listening to characters recite information about how a computer system works...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks the topic a little broad for definitive discussion. Or are we supposed to talk about Dan Brown, Jane Austen, and Garfield in the same topic? Heck, there are some in my family who could go on for hours discussing which version of Pride and Prejudice (counted in hours) is preferable based on casting alone.

Yes, I will remove the book / movie list and leave it as a general discussion.

Columbus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.