Books and Movies

Well I've seen it go both ways actually. I've read some books and found the movie was better and vice versa. I think you have to judge each one on it's own. Of course there are times when the book and movie have almost nothing in common besides the title but I find that is very rare now a days. For many of them I can enjoy both and see them as seperate forms of entertainment. Telling the same story but in differnet ways. There are ones I have been disappointed in, the Harry Potter 4 movie for example or the book version of Delores Claiborn by Stephen King, but usually I can accept each as it is.

The only movie which was made from a book which I saw and found much better than the book is the Bourne trilogy.The books from Robert Ludlum like Bourne ultimatum and Bourne supremacy were a complete waste of the paper they were printed on. On the other hand both the movies were excellant and it makes you wonder the movie was adapted from the horrendous books. Regards

i read the book Godfather, the movie is really good, infact too good. But I think my imagination made the book seem more realistic and exciting than the movie.

I always find the books more interesting, than those made into movies. Because I think that most of them made into movies are sort of limited, they have ommitions. Where in when we read the book, we could visualize and even feel what the character was trying to express. The story has more twists and that they are very well interpreted..

In every case except one, I've liked the books better. The exception is "The Princess Bride." That movie is so wonderful, so classic, that you can't read the book without hearing Inigo's voice, can't read the descriptions of Florin and Guilder without seeing their movie counterparts.

About 99% of the time, the books are better than the movies. I must also make myself read the book first if I ever plan on watching the movie. If I don't, I will never get the book read, and will probably miss out on a great piece of literature.

I ususally see the movie first then read the book. My favorite book I saw as part of a mini series. It was More Tales Of The City. I liked the mini series Tales Of The City, I read the book. I saw Henry and June then I read Tropic of Cancer.

I almost always prefer the book over the movies. Although I agree with you about the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. They did a wonderful job bringing those books to life. I think the one that I found the worst was probably Battlefield Earth. I loved that book and I absolutely adore John Travolta so I had such high hopes for that movie. I even paid the money to go to the theater to watch it rather than waiting for it to come out on DVD. I ended up leaving before the movie was over because I was just so upset at how awful and unlike the book it was.

For me it really depends on the book/movie. For example, I prefer the movie Blade Runner to the book on which it is based (Do androids dream of electric sheep?), but then I prefer the LotR trilogy books much more than the movies. I usually do prefer the books.

I have read and watched Running With Scissors. I read the book first. It is kind of a weird story, but ok. When i saw the movie, im sure that people who didnt read the book wouldnt understand the movie. The storytelling in the movie is not clear enough.

I have not read a lot of books that has been made into a movie , just a few like the perfect storm,devil wears prada and da vinci code, and as for me I enjoyed them more as in a lot better in the book rather than the movies, maybe because you can capture everything in the book even the smallest details unlike in the movies where you squeeze the whole story in just 120 minutes or more.

harry potter series.. in my case, i read the books before i wantched the films. conclusion: i like the books better.

I'm probably real corny, but I always make a point of reading the book before watching the movie. I told ya I was corny :). Usually the books are better. Where the Heart IS, by Billie Letts was a good movie, it wasn't as good as the book, but it was still a good movie. I thought Contact (forgot the author, but Jodie Foster played in the movie), was a great movie. It was better than the book, in my opinion. Those are the only two that I can think of, right off hand, for me, where the movie was as close too or as good as the book.

"Love Story" by Eric Segal was a great book and an equally nice movie. "Mystic river" was a much better book than the movie and the same is my opinion about "catch me if you can". "Gone with the wind" is also a better book though the movie features in the list of all time great hits.

I would haveto say usually any of Stephen King books are far better that their movie counterparts.

I have seen some that turns into movie, i like most those that in movies 'coz here i have understand more than just reading it,

I usually read the books first before I see the movies. With Harry Potter, I prefer the books over the flicks. Some scenarios in the book were deleted due to time constraints, and if you haven't read the book, you'd be confused. Also, it's easy to imagine the picture the author is trying to make since it was written for kids. In the case of Lord of the Rings, the flick helped me understand the book more. Although some scenes were also deleted, the stories continuity was fluid, so the story line was not affected. Also, there were some scenes which was difficult to picture, and the movie made it easy with the wonderful graphics. As for the Bourne series, I like them both. The flick and the book both created a different feel for me.

I really love to read, but time restraints have kept that to a minimal lately. I read "Interviw With a Vampire" when it came out nad I was truley fascinated by Anne Rice's writing in that book. So when the movie came out, I had to see it. It is the only movie that I have gone to the opening show on the opening day to see. I was amazed that the intro to the movie was the exact same as I had imagined it would be when I had read the book. The rest of the movie followed the book nicely and I would recommend both. This is the closest recreation of a book made into a movie that I can remember. Second best would be the Left Behind book/movie.

It's usually that books are better than the films as theres so much you can cram into a 3hr long picture and the content you can put into a book is limitless. So I tend to prefer the book to the film but there have admitidly been some quite good films (if you watch them as a film, not as a reproduction of a book if you see what I mean)

I love to read the books, I find that the when the book is made into a movie it doesnt have as much as information like the book. Maybe because of the time frame.