Just wondering......Book or Movie?

[DuckiesDarling]

Which do you prefer when both are available? Lately a lot of books are turned into movies. Some surpass the book, some completely change it. So what is your personal preference and why?


For me, the book is always better. I get to put faces on the characters and can pretty much suspend disbelief more when reading than when I watch a movie.

[niftyshellshock]

Books hands down, the one notable exception is Lord of the Rings. Reading that was like watching paint dry, and the movies were EPIC.

[Realist]

As one with a vivid imagination, I am often disappointed when I see a movie, after reading a good book.

The actors usually look differently than I had envisioned, their voices and mannerisms, too.

I remember reading "Doctor No". Then, when the movie came out......nothing tracked the book, it seems! The plot was different; only the title and character's names were the same.

Still, it was something new and interesting to see........that's not always the case, though.

I agree that some books are very dry and may even take effort to finish. I have gotten through a few chapters of a highly recommended book, but became too bored to continue. I've also seen movies that degraded my interest, as well.

Sometimes, a movie may expand my interest interest through visuals, sound, and character depiction.

I like a little mix of both.

[Gearbox]

With 'fiction' I'd rather watch the film, because I get bored. But with autobiographies and science etc I like to have the book, because I can go back over it if I don't understand or forget parts.:)

Btw - I watched the film Insidious the other night all on my own in the dark. I nearly ruptured my chuff crapping myself in parts!:eek:
Just saying.:bigrin:

[lizard-lix]

I'm with Realist.. I go both ways (well of course :-)

I love to read and like Realist my imagination creates the scene in my head when I read a book, I develop pretty vivid impressions of the characters and settings. I almost see the 'movie' in my head.

OTOH I really enjoy a well done movie or TV series.

So, I love True Blood on TV, but I also read all the Sookie Stackhouse books and since the plot has started to diverge, I get equal enjoyment form both.

Same with Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, I liked the book and Swedish version of the movie, equally. But in that case the two were very close.

As for the James Bond movies, I tend to go with the movies, but I do like the books.

Most others, I go with the books...

Cheers,

Liz

[12voltman59]

I cannot make a sweeping generalization as to which form of a story is always best---in most cases the books do tend to win out with me--but in many others--the movies far surpass the books--take the Godfather books and movies-the books by Mario Puzo were pretty good--but the first two Godfather movies almost immediately were hailed and remain as among the best movies ever made--they are classics of cinema while the books are pretty much now forgotten.

It just does depend on each case. One thing you do have to do is consider them as totally separate entities and judge each on their own merits.

I had to come back and add a few more movie/books to the list---first--Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath"--a very good book--but I think the move may have surpassed the book---the characters of Ma Joad, played by a character actress whose name escapes me and a very young actor named Henry Fonda playing Tom Joad---they were both exactly the sort of people that Steinbeck described and that towards the end of the story speech of Tom's about "being there when a guy is beaten by the bosses" or however that passage goes--I think of Fonda's voice saying those words.

Another book and film that the movie surpassed---"Lawrence of Arabia." It was a great book--but once again--the movie is among the pantheon of movie classics--the movie caught the epic sweep of that vast landscape and expansive story---and that they selected a young and beautiful actor, Peter O'Toole, (before drink and time caught up with him) to play Lawrence was nothing less than genius---he was more of a great Lawrence than was the man himself.

[sammie19]

9 times out of 10 book. Sometimes film if I have seen the film first but not usually. Jane Austin is a different category to me. She wrote beautifully but boringly and I dont like the books one bit. I do think TV adaptations of her novels are an improvement on the written word. I have yet to see a film of a Jane Austin story which I like.

An exception is also 'Atonement' by Ian McEwan. Loved the film. hated the book which I read not long beofre seeing the film. I almost didnt go and see it because of the book but am glad I did.:)

[baachus]

More often than not, the book. As others have mentioned, a book allows you to visualize the characters, the setting. You can make your own movie with your imagination as you read. You decide for yourself the dramatic high points. A movie of the same book, it's someone else's interpretation. Due to time restraints, the producers may not be able to put all the elements of the book into the movie. It can work great, it can be a dud. An example would be M*A*S*H, an excellent book (Richard Hooker) and movie (Robert Altman). But, to put all of the book into the film, it would have ran another 2 hours at least. Shogun (James Clavell) was unbearably slow for the first 100-150 pages before it picked up for me. The TV mini-series made an admirable attempt to cover all the book but couldn't use all of what was in the book. In some cases, what I would have omitted differs from what the producers omitted.

Usually, for me, if I read the book first, the movie disappoints. Sometimes the only common point is the title and character names, that's it. The just isn't the same. I try to separate the two but am not always successful.