Is the book *always* better than the movie?
Yes
Side Score: 23
Winning Side! |
 |
No
Side Score: 19
|
|
|
|
|
I must say that they are. I have never seen a movie and thought ' damn reading that book was a waste of time '. Time and time again I am dissapointed with the movie since it always is nothing like the book. I think that the movie throws to much director into it and a little less author. I remember seeing the Harry Potter movie ( Sorcerers Stone? ) and it totally ruined what I thought all of the characters looked like. They were all wrong and they skipped so many vital parts that I decided from then on that the book would always be better than the movie. I have yet to see the movie and think that it was better than the book. If I see the movie I am unable to read the book, after that it becomes pointless.There are also important reasons to read a book over a movie anyway. Books have had me at a higher vocab since I was in elementary school, so books are better FOR you and they are better than the movie. Side: yes
3
points
The book almost always seems to be better than the movie because the book has more detail than a film could ever have unless you make it a mini-series. There are times, however, when I haven't read the book as yet and find my self running to buy it after the film is out. That's because I want more and I want to see if the characters were true to themselves and the story-line. If a film satisfies and entertains, then it's a success. The same with a book and that makes both good. Side: Yes with rare exception
2
points
The book is always better than the movie, the movie producer cannot cram in all the nessesary details and informations in the plot to fit the time-slot. You cannot have a movie that is 7 hours long but you can have a show that plays for 30mins every weekday that would be good. I rather the harry potter movie to come out in series or episodes that will be interesting. Side: yes
1
point
Yes! Each person imagines what they want the book to appear as. Every character has favorable and unfavorable traits. Directors (try as they might) can't read people's brains, so it's their interpretation. It depends on how active your imagination is, and how closely they follow the book in its best aspects. Sometimes the movies add onto the plot. Movies feel like they are missing something. If you watch a movie before reading a book it blocks your point of view when you try to read it. You see actors instead of characters, which is crazy. Books leave room to think. You can control their pace, which is great. I mean, atleast for me, nothing beats curling up and enjoying a good book. Side: yes
"Directors (try as they might) can't read people's brains, so it's their interpretation. " Good point that is very true. But what if the writer of the book helps write the script? Take the movie Holes for example; Lois Sachar(the writer of the book) wrote the script and it was almost exactly like a book. The movie was a big success. But the writer being involved usually doesn't happen. In my opinion more original movies should be made, to many movies coming out of Hollywood are based on something els. Side: No
1
point
um..DUH! I've never read a book and thought the book sucked and the movie was better. i think the exception is the reader i haven't seen the movie but I've read the book and i hated the way it was written there was no plot line. so usually the book is waaaaaaaay better than the movie! Side: yes
1
point
definitely.. books let you into peoples thoughts whereas movies just leave you with facial expression.. its easy to get lost in a book.. and more often than not, the movies always cut out alot of the story because the book is just too long to be made into one movie.. and movies are (to me) a one of thing.. each time i watch it, its the same.. but whenever i reread a book, i get more out of it than before.. i realise things i miss.. its always an adventure.. and, it give's me idea for essays too.. :) Side: Yes with rare exception
|
There's nothing inherently better about a book, people just like to brag about having read one. They are different though. Books pull you in more, get you more involved, and force your imagination, which both increases the enjoyment of any activity, but makes your brain more efficient. But movies are faster, and if done well, can provoke just as much thought as a book. But the length doesn't allow people to get as involved as a book would. And people are not as involved in the watching process as in the reading process, so generally would not feel as involved in the story. Side: No
2
points
Exactly, and if one were to base a book on a movie, it would not be as good. Somewhere someone had a vision for something, and they turned it into a book or a movie. It's really hard for someone else to convert that to a different medium. A couple examples of the best job possible are the Lord of the Rings series. The book is still better, but the director did pretty much all a director could do. Likewise, the Starwars books, while very cool, just can't match the movies. Least in my opinion. Side: No
Also, I think that when it comes to fiction, books are generally better. (with some exceptions) And when it comes to non-fiction movies/documentaries are better. I mean take "Planet Earth"(which I highly recommend) for example, you can't get that visual learning experience from a text book. Side: No
Books are more about being a part of your life. Movies are more about entertainment. but, that aside, Lord of the Rings was better as a movie. The story was good, but the books was just too long and filled with unnecessary detail and poems. and the remake to War of the Worlds was ten times better than the book. Side: No
I can never read a book after the movie. It is pointless, would you buy a lottery ticket if you already knew for a fact you wouldn't win? Of course not, same with a book and a movie a movie takes a matter of a part of a day while a movie takes up a couple days of dedication. If you know what happens why spend 5 days learning what you already know? Side: yes
1
point
|
