Why are you read a book if there is a movie of it?

Because the books are so much better. And when I first read Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, there were no films. I usually prefer books to films though, leave more to your imagination. And those two series you mention are very long books, so it is very difficult to put all of it in one film.

Hello, the book you can use your head. Harry Potter looks in your imagination is quite different than imFilm happens in the book more than for example in the film was the roller coaster ride in the film only hinted. The car pulled up and she got out of going about it in the book. If you're not familiar with the books the movie is more genuine exciting, but, well, the book must always be better than the movie otherwise it is not a good movie. bye

hi kendedes2011. i never did take the time to read the harry potter and lord of the rings books. instead i just watched the movie and read reviews how different the books are from the movie. in a way, it helped me appreciate the movies more because i wasn't comparing it to the books. i don't think that there should be much of a deal if the movie is different from the book. i've read reviews wherein critics lash out at the movie for having a different ending or developing a different character. to me, it just lessens the movie experience and doesn't help at all. my two cents. happy mylotting! cheers!!!

i think i prefer to watch a movie than read a book. because i will know just in two hours but if i read a book, maybe it can take one week to read and to know it. nice discussion...

If the book was written before the movie was made, I read the book. If the book is based on a movie that was popular, I don't. Seeing the movie first will ruin the book for me, since I can't help but visualize what I saw in the movie as I read the book. Usually, if I've read the book first, the movie tends to disappoint me. When I saw The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, all the characters seemed to be mere shadows of the personalities described in the book, especially Aslan, who looked nothing like I had envisioned him.

As what they have already said, books are more detailed and way better than the movie. I actually don't like watching movies when I have already read the book, because I always end up disappointed, like the Da vinci code for example, no matter how good the film is, it is still not as good as the book. But for the harry potter books, I find them too long to read (not to mention, a bit expensive), so I prefer the movies.

Why not? Books are better than movies. Personally, I love books a whole heck of a lot more than movies, whether or not there's an adaptation involved. If you gave me a great book and a great movie, unrelated to each other, I'd read the book first. I just think there's so much more depth and creativity in books. Movies, and don't get me wrong... I love movies, are just a shallow imitation of that. A movie hands you sounds and images, and a book coaxes you into imagining them for yourself.

Because movies are glimpses of the books. They cannot fit all of the books pieces into a film that is only a few short hours. The Harry Potter books are so much more in depth then the movies. You miss so much of the humor, fun, meaning and characters!

Because your imagination is 1000 times better than any movie! I'll NEVER watch the films to the Lord of the Rings to me to not destroy my "pictures" when reading. I have read the Neverending Story both seen the film. That gave me the reading experience completely destroyed.

Because the film 1st is usually much modified 2nd important details are lost 3rd because everyone can give free rein to his Fanatasie 4th you can read a book anywhere, anytime 5th because reading is;) 6th Watching movies is something for lazy people: D enough reasons? I like it at all, especially as implemented Fanatasie films. Most important things are simply discarded and not met expectations. Take as an example ... Twilight before I read the books and then saw the movies that absolutely can not keep up. Whenever I read the books now, I'm Robert Pattison and Kristen Ward Rochester in my mind, even if I have the two presented a completely different .. gone stupid

Often the books are much better than the movies, you have something more of it, the stress lasts longer, the descriptions stimulate their own imagination, which is often much more beautiful than anything you can see in the movies and you can start the merge history and a part of it. Often missing in the films also characters that appear in the books (eg: the Lord of the Rings) or entire scenes (with both of your examples).

It must be very strenuous to find a movie that is better than the respective book. There are not many. Judging by your question, you've probably never read a book, for which there is also a film that otherwise you would probably not ask the question. Are you reading any books? Let's take your example Harry Potter. The first book is in my edition (English Paperback) 326 pages. The movie is 152 minutes long, according to imdb (the extended version it brings to 159 minutes), so a good 2 ½ hours. The film is pretty close to the template, but even here a lot is lost. The issues of volumes 4-7 that I have on the shelf (also British paperback), all have over 700 pages. The longest of these is Volume 5 (Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix) with 950 pages. Roughly expected for a film strip 5 would then be just over 7 ½ hours. He is not. According to imdb, the film runs a mere 138 minutes. Many films are drastically reduced. If you look at only movies, you will often never know the complete story. In addition, the plot of the book is not changed often, sometimes beyond recognition. An example is the Neverending Story by Michael Ende. The first film, perhaps covering the first 40% of the book (not to say the exact percentage, I would look in the book), still keeps relatively close to the template. But here was already reduced significantly, and many events are missing from the film (eg a collective insectoid creature that made millions or even billions of single individuals, and there is an important task in the plot). Although this is the best part, Michael was disappointed by the end of the film and has repented his permission for the filming. The second film takes only a few out at random plot elements from the rest of the bookstore and incorporates them into a different story. The third part is the book except the names of some people no longer together. "The Neverending Story" is one of the best books I know of - I can not recommend it highly enough. I guess you can only get it to you (library or bookstore) and read it. I do not know anyone who has read the book and it was not that great! All the people who have seen the movies and think they no longer need to read the book do, I honestly sorry. They do not know what they're missing. I could list many more reasons and examples, but that should suffice for now. :-) Oh, one thing I find out, but in which I should perhaps mention already. Through reading, you expand your vocabulary, learn spelling, magnify your general knowledge, train your brain, promote creativity. And all for free, without having to learn it, and it's fun (for the actual book), too!

Reading book is better, if we have enough time. But I think watching movie is more relaxing and enjoyable than reading books, especially after a long time work(I admitted that I'm a little lazy.) After watching the movie, I can get some general thoughts about the story. If the story is good, I could choose to read the books. But this also could affect the imagination during the reading.

I like to watch movie, than reading its story i a book..

as other people have said, books are better. they have a lot more detail in them, and a book can go anywhere with you. with a film you have to sit there and watch it. also with a book, it takes longer to read, so especially if it takes several days to read it, you feel much more immersed in the world you're reading of. it's a part of your life over a longer period of time. and you're actively involved, whearas watching a film is a much more passive activity. it's easy to put a film on, and not really pay attention. with a book you're there. I definitely prefer books. even when I love films, books are better and more fun.

I prefer to read the book rather than seeing the movie derived from the same book. A book is richer in plot and covers more incidents and personalities than can be taken up in a movie. One's imagination can also be given full rein while reading a book. In a movie, you are limited to the camera's range and angle and the director's point of view.

Books are always better

Books are more descriptive whereas movies cut out some of the details.