Books or Movies?

[demaina]

It seems like movies based on books are never as good as the books themselves. For example, the Harry Potter books are much better than the movies, but I like the movies as well. I just get really frustrated when important information is left out of the movies, especially when they add things to the movie that aren't in the book.

Agreed.  I even gave one of the Harry Potter movies as an example when my sister was wondering why I was so upset about it.  It makes a big deal to me at least, even if it is just a little detail.  I mean, Chamber of Secrets for example.  I was watching a scene that was cut from the movie and it was Harry asking how could he do something without knowing he was doing it.  Talk about a hint at what's going on.  And how Hermione is knitting socks throughout the entire book to free all the house elves and Harry uses his sock at the end.  It doesn't take away from the movie completely, but it's still something that was pointed at a lot in the books, kind of explaining why Harry might've thought of it.

[jenniferhoder]

I LOVE to read the books first, but the reality is that I just don't have time... so I usually end up watching the movie.

[yosav]

books always have more details, but i like watching a movie better.

[lkeys81]

I read the book than the movies. Movies sometimes skips parts that you read in the book.

[bigfoot951]

The only books I would read would be non fiction books.  So it is probably unfair for me to try and compare books to movies.  But you asked so I will go with movies without hesitation.

[heather_sergent]

I would rather read the book the movie wans to add stuff or take out the good parts of the book.. Like the help.. The book was so much better..

[gamerpeeps]

I like GOOD books and I like GOOD movies, but I really like GOOD books MADE into GOOD movies...

I'm with you! It is a rarity to have good books made into good movies but it sure is nice when they do. Lord of the Rings is a good example of that. I'd rather read a book first and then go see the movie. I have my own movie version playing as I'm reading a good book and it's iteresting to see how another interprets the book. Sometimes I am disappointed that what I thought was a major part in the book was excluded from the movie but you also have to take into consideration the time factor of a movie. Usually, I simply enjoy the movie as presented.

[qmaxx]

I recently read The Hunger Games cause my sister has been bugging me to read it for almost a year now (or at least it feels like that) and after I finished the first two books, we decided to go see the movie.

Now, surprisingly, it followed the larger plot very well, which is always a big concern for me when seeing something that started as a book become a movie.  However there were little things that I found important in the book that were overlooked in the movie.  Now I'm kinda curious what they are going to do with the second movie because some of the small things that I found important are brought up in the second book to explain something or to move the story along.  Now, it was a great movie and they did a good job conveying what was happening without actually having to show some of it, but those little details just kept bugging me.  If I hadn't've read the book, it would be a great movie.  But with the book in mind, the book was way better.

What do you think about when movies do this, either cutting out big or small pieces that you found important?  Is there a movie where this ever happened to you?  Why do you think they do this?  Which do you normally like better, the book or the movie?  If you see the movie first, do you ever bother reading the book?

I read some books but not this one. I really like to see it. I like to watch the movies. Some movies are really great. The good thing about some movies, they inspire you and surprise you too.

[MBD11]

There definitely was a lot cut out of the movie  but I felt that they needed to. There was a lot of character development in the book but it was nearly 400 pages and to condense that into 2 hours was a great miracle similar to what they did with Harry Potter, the had to cut a lot of the stuff out.

[loulizlee]

I may not have read enough books that were made into movies to have a true perspective, but I have never seen a movie that was even close to the detail and beauty of the book it was made from.

[demaina]

There definitely was a lot cut out of the movie  but I felt that they needed to. There was a lot of character development in the book but it was nearly 400 pages and to condense that into 2 hours was a great miracle similar to what they did with Harry Potter, the had to cut a lot of the stuff out.

Oh yeah, obviously they have to cut pieces out for the sake of time, but to take out pieces that are kinda important seems stupid to me.  I mean, Peeta had blood poisoning, which is why she went to the feast in the first place, and he was still bleeding the rest of the book, hence why they had to help him when they got out of the arena.  The movie just gave him some miracle cure and took away the whole "he could still bleed to death" thing that she had to worry about in the book.

[gettisbrooks]

  I think that movies cut out some of the parts to make you read the book, maybe it is a budget they have to keep, or they plan to do a sequel

[ljrjess69]

i havent read a book since i was in shool ,been along time ago,,movies for me 

[Adroden2010]

i like watching movies better than reading a book.

[DeliriousKris]

BOOKS ARE ALWAYS BETTER THAN THE MOVIE....I'M READING THE TWILIGHT SERIES NOW AND THERE IS A LOT MORE DETAIL IN THR BOOKS

Most of the time I would agree with you. I have on a few occasions though found the movie to be better than the book. It's rare though. For example 'The Woman in Black' the movie was better than the book IMO.

I never saw 'The Woman in Black' or read the book, but I think another example of a good book being made in to a better movie is 'A Walk to Remember'.