Should you watch a movie based on its book, or are the two really comparable?

Being an avid book reader, I eventaully read the book that the movie is based on. Sometimes before I see it but most of the time afterwards. And from my experience I have found that the book is often much better than the movie. This is because in a movie, you only have a certain amount of time to tell the story. In a book, you have unlimited time. I know that many times I have been disappointed because a movie was no where near what the book was. I have also found its hard not to compare the book and movie.

First off, welcome to myLot - I hope you have a lot of fun here. Books are much better because you can let your imagination run riot picturing the situations, the heros, the villans and the dress. A film has to be a precis of a book due to time limitations so one has to accept that a film will only cover the essential facts of a book. Having said that, I do enjoy seeing films of books and take then for what they are. I very rarely read a book that a film I have seen is based on.

I have watched The Ten Commandments which is based on the Holy Bible. There were already many changes and so it does not depict the truth. But the movie is very entertaining. So as far as movies taken from the Holy Bible are concerned, if you want to be entertained, see the movies. But if you want the truth, read the Holy Bible.

i have read GODFATHER and FOUNTAINHEAD the two of them are best sellers and then saw the movie also and found the movies very much different from the stories also and the imaginations i have made while reading the books , so there is fun little to watch the movie as to compare the imaginations between director and our minds , so i first complete the novels or books and then go for movies ..... i haven't seen DA VINCI CODE yet as i could not complete the book from many days once i get over it may be this may i will go for movie......cheers

I think in most cases, to avoid disapointment, it's best to treat them as two seperate entities. I am always surprised if a movie stays anywhere near the original book's plot. The books are almost always better. You wonder sometimes how the movies can get it so wrong!

I remember reading Dean R. Koontz's Hideaway years ago on a holiday. It was one of the first books that I had read completely in English, so I was really excited when I heard about the movie. Guess what, the two were so radically different; the book had been tailored almost from scratch, with major changes in characters, places etc... and in my eyes lost a great deal of its appeal. That's when I decided a book is a book, and a movie is a movie. I'm not saying there are no exceptions, but generally one is not a substitute for the other.

Naturally one will compare them, but in all reality you should not expect the exact same products because one can just look to a movie screenplay to realize it is based off of 88-120 pages and a book is usuually much longer.

A movie is often at its best when it's the work of an auteur; someone who is both writer-director; I love movies like that and which produce scripts that operate as works of art in their own right. That said, great movies can come from novels/plays etc, and in some cases, both can be equally worthy as works of art. In some tragic cases, the movie deviates too far from the book to its detriment, often by utterly altering a very important aspect of the original book. And yet a movie can be very different from the book and still work beautifully; it does this in my opinion by being close to the spirit of the work, and yet adding something sublime of its own. By the same token, exceptionally faithful adaptations can also produce very fine movies. I see nothing wrong with comparing and contrasting, and enjoying both book and movie.

I find it very hard not to compare between the book and it's adaptation. One of the best adaptation from book to movie would be the LOTR trilogy - they're simply awesome. Peter Jackson did a great job of telling the story in a way that doesn't distort the plot. The trilogy has got a great plot that adheres to the original storyline. I don't think any other book-to-movie adaptation works so well. Typically, I'd read the book first before watching the movie. Of course, reading the book gives you an idea of the story and when you watch the movie later you'd know what's happening. Often, I find the book more interesting. This is because of time constraints - the director of a movie has to cut out unnecessary parts and squeeze the whole plot in two hours. Yet, it is those little bits of unnecessary parts that contribute to the whole story's progress and cutting them out would make the story appear less interesting. I guess this would be why movies often fail to live up to their book counterparts.

I like to read the book first and then see the movie. Reading the book gives me more insight as to what the character is going to be like. Once I go to see the movie, I feel like I already know the characters before I even sit to watch it.