• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Watching movies vs Reading Books

BookGuy

BookGuy

New Member
Which you like most? Watching movies based on the books or reading the books?

I think i like reading books. In films we can see what actors/actress and directors showed us. But in book we can use our imagination. In watching films you will get very little scope of using you imagination.
 
It depends honestly. Many film adaptations haven't done justice to the books and other have been great. Among my favorite
adaptations, LOTR, Last of the Mohicans, among my least favorite, Harry Potter films 3-6
 
BookGuy said:
Which you like most? Watching movies based on the books or reading the books?

I think i like reading books. In films we can see what actors/actress and directors showed us. But in book we can use our imagination. In watching films you will get very little scope of using you imagination.
Click to expand...
I agree,you can use your imagation in a book,and go anywhere using your imagination in a book.
 
Reading a book allows reader to view images on his head, and create his own world. Watching movie commands us what to see, and direct us where they want to go. We less have time to analyze it, for the film keeps going, while books, we can read then pause and think deep about the situations.
 
BookGuy said:
Which you like most? Watching movies based on the books or reading the books?

I think i like reading books. In films we can see what actors/actress and directors showed us. But in book we can use our imagination. In watching films you will get very little scope of using you imagination.
Click to expand...

Books by a long shot. No two directors will do a film "by the book" accurately. I like to see the movie afterwards to see the distortions the director threw in.
 
Reading a book allows reader to view images on his head, and create his own world. And books are our special friends. so I just love to read "TheUnkownLeader" Book.
 
Christian Martin Reign said:
Reading a book allows reader to view images on his head, and create his own world. Watching movie commands us what to see, and direct us where they want to go. We less have time to analyze it, for the film keeps going, while books, we can read then pause and think deep about the situations.
Click to expand...

I agree w/this, and that's why I usually prefer the book. Also, most movies just aren't able to cover as much due to runtime and they'll drop content that may not directly pertain to the main plot but add depth - you get this with Dickens adaptations all the time, and I've watched like 10 different movie versions of Jane Eyre (because I'm a masochist apparently) and even the best ones miss a lot.
The one weird exception is when it comes to fantasy (and some sci-fi). I have trouble getting into fantasy books a lot of the time, I think because the authors get so caught up in world-building that I have trouble connecting with the characters & plots.
 
I think I'm going to watch movie first than read the book. At least if I watch the movie and it's really good I know my mind will be blown when I read the book. Disappointment always follows when I read first than watch.
 
For me it depends whether it is a type of book I would read, because there are stories I would not read the book but I would see the movie. For instance I probably would never read The Shawshank Redemption but I love the movie. What I also find interesting is when there are more than one movie version of a book. Two examples are I Am Legend which has three movie versions (my favorite being the third with Will Smith) and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (The Swedish version is Technically more accurate to the book in parts, but it lack much of the flavour and character charm that the U.S. version has.
I think the issues come in when the director wants to use an already popular novel or series to make a name for themselves, and the only way they can do that is by showing how they altered the story, which often ruins it for people.
 
K.S. Crooks said:
For me it depends whether it is a type of book I would read, because there are stories I would not read the book but I would see the movie. For instance I probably would never read The Shawshank Redemption but I love the movie. What I also find interesting is when there are more than one movie version of a book. Two examples are I Am Legend which has three movie versions (my favorite being the third with Will Smith) and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (The Swedish version is Technically more accurate to the book in parts, but it lack much of the flavour and character charm that the U.S. version has.
I think the issues come in when the director wants to use an already popular novel or series to make a name for themselves, and the only way they can do that is by showing how they altered the story, which often ruins it for people.
Click to expand...

See with; the girl with the Dragon tattoo, I saw the movie first, than I went to read the book. Mind was blown; Was like watching the movie again. I did appreciate what they did with the American version however the Swedish versions was good, followed the book very well, but I felt low quality, they were all produced in the same year. Both American and Swedish version had there moments which dictated the books story and some moments were also lacking. But over all both theatrical elements fitted the book very well, or came very close to capturing the books story line..

I agree with "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (The Swedish version is Technically more accurate to the book in parts, but it lack much of the flavour and character charm that the U.S. version has" I felt the characters were stunning and captured the emotion, raw, real characters that the book portrayed. The Swedish to me, felt a little rushed, and pressed for time. I could be wrong, it's been a fair while.

I have never read I am legend, but I heard will Smith's film was completely off from the book.

another movie that followed the book; (but the 1987 film lacked many) was flowers in the attic. Given the time; I'm sure no one wanted to see that on screen and I'm sure it was taboo back in the 70s and still is. The lifetime version captured the book. The lifetime movie is what implored me to read the book, switched on the 1987 film on Netflix after I finished and was disappointed on how bad they deviated from the story.
 
Last edited:
:cool:It depends on the movie, but usually the books are so much better then the movies. Come on with books we can put ourselves in the role of the leading lady or leading man or who ever captures you interest in the book you read. :p
 
I'm always disappointed when I watch the movie version of a book, they tend to lack in plot and background stories on the characters (until they decide to put out the dreaded prequel). Plus I usually start shouting at the telly when one is on because I'm missing chunks of the story, I'm no fun to watch this sort of films with. :oops:
 
I think one of the reasons we prefer books to movies is because the movie cannot contain everything that is in the book. Of course there is a very practical reason for this. Each minute of screen time costs the movie makers an enormous amount of money; also, to get everything into a movie that was presented in the book would create a movie that would be too long for theatre viewers to sit through. In order to remain even close to rendering what Tolkien wrote Peter Jackson was required to make three movies in the presentation of The Lord Of The Rings and the cost of this production was the highest in cinematic history. Jackson was blasted by some for not including everything in the books, but sometimes less is more. For example, in the books yet another battle takes place after the Hobbits return to the Shire. Personally I think this would have been an enormous mistake to include in the movie. After the battle of Minas Tirith another battle would have been grossly anti climatic. I have read all of Tolkien's books and personally I think Jackson did a far better job with the movies than the author did with the books.

One example of a film presentation that WAS, in my opinion, totally faithful to the book was the 1995 BBC miniseries of Austen's Pride and Prejudice - in my opinion one of the finest viewing experiences of my life. But, to be fair, this TV miniseries was, in its totality, nearly 6 hours long.
 
Books for sure. It's just a different, more giving media. I've never seen a film, that is better than the book.
 
I love movies, but books tend to be better, in my opinion. I remember in middle school I read 'Little Women'. I was eager to see the movie that was coming out with Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder, etc., but my mom told me I couldn't see it till I finished the book. Ever since, I've had it ingrained in me that I need to read books before movies. I did it with all of the 'Harry Potter' books and countless others. I've enjoyed all of the movies as well, but the books contain so much more detail and focus than the movies. However, it is amazing to watch the book "come to life" on the big screen. There is a certain beauty in watching that happen.

edit: removed promotional link
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A movie is a collaboration. You have the original author (maybe) and then a script writer, director, and then the studio and big money who may want this or that changed, etc., not to mention the actors and their take on how the character should be portrayed, etc. A book is the artistic conception of one person, possibly two depending how involved the editor is. But in general it is a much more pure product of a single creative mind in full responsible charge of all of the details presented to you in the story, and even how much detail is given and how much is left to the reader.

I really prefer that. I like an author telling me a story, rather than a committee.
 
BookGuy said:
Which you like most? Watching movies based on the books or reading the books?

I think i like reading books. In films we can see what actors/actress and directors showed us. But in book we can use our imagination. In watching films you will get very little scope of using you imagination.
Click to expand...
What gives books the edge in this sense is they're more descriptive and let you see exactly what's going on behind the plot and context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top