Books Vs. Movies

[Silverthorns]

Okay so here is the deal.


You know how some books get a movie right?
Well since you do. I'll still do this then.


Okay so a big series like say

Eragon or Percy Jackson (In my retrospect)
The first books both got a Movie to go with it

Both in my opinion those movies stank..and the books were better.

What about you?

Movies or Books?

[sage-saria]

Ok here goes,

When you read a book you form in your mind a picture of each character how they look what height weight and build they should, even what thier voice should sound like. When you watch a movie you are actually watching someone elses "characters" on the screen. The problem with books vs films is that the directors "characters" may not match yours, and I feel this is why many peolpe who have read a book and then watched its film get disappointed with its translation.

You have to remember as well that eveyone has a different perception of timings and events etc, yes i'm talking from my stage craft experienc here as myself and the rest of the cast had a rather heated discussion with our director on Monday.

Also its not possible to please all the peolpe all the time as we are all individuals with different likes and dislikes but variety is the spice of life

[Magitroopa]

I feel that they are BOTH good especially the Harry Potter books along with the Harry Potter movies ALTHOUGH I forget which one (I think the movies) don't explain the story as much as the books. (Small tiny parts of the story)

[khdarkwolf]

Depends on the order you get into it. If you read a book then the movie, you tend to prefer the book, but if you watch the movie first, it effects the way you think about the book (ex. Imaging the character from the movie and disregarding the descriptions in the book)

[sage-saria]

khdarkwolf, don't you think that what you said only occurs if the director ignores the descriptions in the book, if there are any at all. Sometimes the joy of reading is that you form your own image of the characters.

[Linky]

For me it depends. I don't really have much of an active imagination, so sometimes it's really hard for me to visualize things in a book or text in general. but sometimes I can. Books generally have much more detail in everything. Since movies usually have limited budgets and time constraints (90 minutes to 3 hours) they usually have to leave out some detail. But movies also help me with visualizing everything.

I guess for me it would be a tie between the two.

[khdarkwolf]

Saria, not really, a director could read the same description, but get a different image.
Let's say the a book has a description like this.

"The scar on Myles' neck was what drew attention, how did he get that?"

What do you imagine? Small scar, big scar? On the left side or the right side?

If you were to watch a movie, and you saw Myles with a dark three-claw scar on the right side of his neck, when you read the book, you'd think of Myles having that scar instead of the one the author intended.

Well, Myles is my character so I know exactly what the scar looks like. The scar is sort of X shaped, quite thick, a few shades lighter than the rest of his skin, and centered.

Totally different picture, same description =/

[toonwolflink418]

I think books are better.

Some movies RUIN books, like the Percy Jackson movie, That terrified me at how inaccurate that was...

Though if done right, Books and Movies can live in peace

[Silverthorns]

I think books are better.

Some movies RUIN books, like the Percy Jackson movie, That terrified me at how inaccurate that was...

Though if done right, Books and Movies can live in peace

EXACTLY.
The Percy Jackson one..
OMG..
It needs to be remade or atleast try better for Sea Of Monsters (Second Book),

Indeed true though, if done right it can live in peace EX: Harry Potter

[Montaru]

Inkheart, Lightning Thief, Eragon, Stormbreaker, all terrible movies.
Capricorn was just an insane guy with an obsession for duct tape.
Percy was 17, the pearls weren't given to him by a nereid, and he didn't fight Ares.
Brom was killed by Durza, the Raz'ac died, Durza used a sword once, Arya was human.
Alex's undercover name was Kevin, not Felix, He fought Darius Sayle, not Harold Sayle, Alex had a mind control device.

[Tinibree]

Oh please don't get me going on how horrible the Eragon movie is, please. The end, he stays with the drawves, when he's supposed to go with the elves. What in the heck? And Saphira. Her wings. They wound me to look at, truly. Jeod and Teirm, big parts of second book. The prophecies. And I shall stop there before I rant.

[Nerion]

I don't like reading. It's to troublesome, so movies!

[khdarkwolf]

What about books based off movies?? I can't think of an example at the moment, but I know there are some

[ashdawn504]

In my opinion it really depends on the book or film:

How to train your dragon was an awesome book and they made it into an even awesome movie

But james and the giant peach was a better book than film, so it does depend

[CFood]

Personally, I like when some books are adapted as movies, but not others.

The difference is behind the scenes really. If the whole point for making a book into a movie is to make money, the movie usually is not as good.

But when you make the movie with the intentions of just sharing the story to a newer/different audience, to be an art form, those tend to really shine.

Not to say that all movies in those two different forms are always like those. There are definitely some movies made by Hollywood that shine and some that are made with an artistic point of view that just dwindle.


(Before I went off-topic, I thought I'd throw in a suggestion to make this a Books vs. Movies vs. Video Games thread, because I want to talk about the video game adaptions of said books and movies, and vice-versa)