The book or film?

yearofthe · Jan 26, 2010 9:37 PM

Do you prefer to read a book or watch the movie for a series? (ex: Harry Potter and Twilight) and why?

Naegling · Jan 26, 2010 10:00 PM

Book first. Unless I didnt know there was a book. then I would watch the movie and then read the book.

Swaffy · Jan 26, 2010 10:58 PM

Knowing that I never read books and I am a visual learner, I say that I
prefer movies over books.

Aicebo · Jan 26, 2010 11:00 PM

It all depends really
it doesn't always go one way or the other for me

bmah · Jan 27, 2010 7:09 AM

I'd do both. However, if you decide to read the book first, don't be surprised if a movie adaptation disappoints you just because it deviates slightly from the book.

Firefly · Jan 27, 2010 9:50 AM

It really does depend. some say the book is always better or vice versa, but it's really not true. There are meh books that are made into great movies and vice versa. often if you read the book first the changes in the film can be annoying. Timewarner has done a good job, all things considered, with Harry Potter, unfoirtunately, a lot of other book series weren't so lucky... =/

-Firefly

Erza · Jan 27, 2010 10:35 AM

I prefer books because they are more descriptive and it sets a picture in your mind.

Phoenix_Flyer · Jan 27, 2010 11:01 AM

I prefer the books, by a long way.

Firefly · Jan 27, 2010 11:06 AM

The New age of Cynder wrote:

I prefer books because they are more descriptive and it sets a picture in your mind.

I think a lot of people like books for that reason, and then are bothered by the movie as it often doesn't match what they had envisooned while reading the book...

-Firefly

Stormy · Jan 27, 2010 9:16 PM

Books, definitely, because of what The New age of Cynder said.

Some of the later Harry Potter movies nearly made me cringe because of how much they messed up. Sad, I know. tongue As for Twilight, I couldn't care less, but I'd assume the movies are better than the books because they don't give us Bella's constant whining.

Clock-la · Jan 27, 2010 10:01 PM

hmm...depends i meen EG

lord of the flies grate book but..the OLD film was a good film but the modern day film...was horse s***

LOTR..never read the books but i love the films :3

EricChristianOlsenFanatic · Jan 27, 2010 11:58 PM

Books for the most part, the Twilight movies are in my opinion not as good as the books. I prefer books to movies, but in some cases some movies that are books are done very well. I heard "The Lovely Bones" which is a book and is now a movie was very well done and I "The Harry Potter" series is for the most part good.

But I'd vote books over films.

DarkFury · Jan 28, 2010 12:05 AM

Well Twilight sucks regardless so.......

From my experience, its always cool to see your favorite book in live action. But the books are always better.

Rurikredwolf · Jan 28, 2010 12:12 AM

DarkFury wrote:

Well Twilight sucks regardless so.......

QFTT

DarkFury · Jan 28, 2010 12:18 AM

Wtf r QFTT??? Quit f**king talking trash?? Because if it is, I'm not talking trash. I'm talking cold hard truth. Sorry, but the truth sucks. Thats life.

yearofthe · Jan 28, 2010 12:37 AM

DarkFury wrote:

Wtf r QFTT??? Quit f**king talking trash?? Because if it is, I'm not talking trash. I'm talking cold hard truth. Sorry, but the truth sucks. Thats life.

Chill out (for real). It means "quoted for the truth"
Search it on http://www.urbandictionary.com/

Rurikredwolf · Jan 28, 2010 12:38 AM

SEriosuly. My points just went down for you. L2research

DarkFury · Jan 28, 2010 12:45 AM

Sorry. Many people get misconceptions when I talk. I sound angry or worked up when I'm not. sad Yeah I was going to look it up ,BUT the last few times I looked up text slang, my eyes got *bleep*ed XO

Brom the Wise · Jan 28, 2010 12:50 AM

Well depends on the book. I will watch a Steven King movie, not read the book. I will read a Tom Clancy book, and maybe watch the movie (go hunt for Red October)

Movies have such a disadvantage though, you have to absorb an entire plotline, character building, location, and setting all in 2 hours. A book normally gets to set each of those upo individualy in a 2 hour block per subject. Problem is, reading takes alot more concentration then watching...

Inferno The Dragon · Jan 28, 2010 7:27 PM

I prefer the books, as they're normally much better.

dragon protector x · Jan 28, 2010 10:12 PM

Well my opinion is that The books are always better unless the book is written after the movie. Like Harry potter *only read first book and didn't care for it* the movie forgot that one ghost! Jabus or Janqus or Jeebs or something. Look at the Eragon movie. Characters were in the wrong spots, some never appeared, the added and removed to much, and Arya did have an altered looking face! she looked human!

For the Books that modeled after the movie or games... The arent ever as good as the movie because They try to add to much to make it a novel. They also kind of re make up some stuff and change what we saw from the movie. I believe the Books are better then the movies any day unless they are modeled after the movie. Movies of books are short, abridged version of the books that is based on the Directors imagination and how he interpreted the book. Thats why reading is so much better, you get your own interpretation of stuff you way. Like when i read Eragon. I imaged Brom as a slightly older guy who was bald, but i liked him. The brom from eragon looked nothing like how i visualized him.

You read any book and you get your own Take on the characters and setting, but a movie is from the directors take on it that he butchers and shortens it into about an hour and a half. IF you want proof, READ Wuthering Heights... Its as dry as a dead leaf, but When you watch the many versions of the movie you will see its all completely different.

DarkFury · Jan 28, 2010 10:17 PM

Yes. Eragon was terrible -shudders- To many good books are butchered by making movies out of them. Then people just watch the movie, and make all their judgments off of them.

Firefly · Jan 29, 2010 11:50 AM

dragon protector x wrote:

Well my opinion is that The books are always better unless the book is written after the movie. Like Harry potter *only read first book and didn't care for it* the movie forgot that one ghost! Jabus or Janqus or Jeebs or something. Look at the Eragon movie. Characters were in the wrong spots, some never appeared, the added and removed to much, and Arya did have an altered looking face! she looked human!
For the Books that modeled after the movie or games... The arent ever as good as the movie because They try to add to much to make it a novel. They also kind of re make up some stuff and change what we saw from the movie. I believe the Books are better then the movies any day unless they are modeled after the movie. Movies of books are short, abridged version of the books that is based on the Directors imagination and how he interpreted the book. Thats why reading is so much better, you get your own interpretation of stuff you way. Like when i read Eragon. I imaged Brom as a slightly older guy who was bald, but i liked him. The brom from eragon looked nothing like how i visualized him.
You read any book and you get your own Take on the characters and setting, but a movie is from the directors take on it that he butchers and shortens it into about an hour and a half. IF you want proof, READ Wuthering Heights... Its as dry as a dead leaf, but When you watch the many versions of the movie you will see its all completely different.

It's because of the time limit though in some cases. Like they didn't forget Peeves in HP, he was actually cast and filmed, his scenes just didn't make it into the final cut of the movie. It wasn't a perfect movie, but the HP series is one of the better ones. They usually only stray from the plot because of time restraints. And while a perfectly made movie does sound appealing, it'd take ages to watch in certain books' cases. some wouldn't be so bad, but some books are so long it'd be next to impossible to make a flawless film adaption without it running a ridiculous amount of time(like seven hours or something crazy like that).

Also, Eragon is an ABNORMALLY AWFUL adaption. it is by far one of the worst I've ever seen. I didn't mind the cast too much personally, but the way they reworked the story was simply horrible. It's hard to enjoy the film after reading the book at any rate. It's probably an okay film if you aren't aware of how badly they are butchering the story...

We had to read I Am David one year in class, and the book was just dreadful, but I actually really liked to movie. So there are exceptions, it just depends on what changes are made and how you personally feel about them. If you liked the book and major changes are made, it's usually a bit frustrating, however if there are very few changes, or you find the changes improve the story(it can happen if you didn't really care for the book for example) the movie can be as good or better.

-Firefly

Rurikredwolf · Jan 29, 2010 3:40 PM

I personally liked Eragon. Less Star Wars than in the book.

Please, don't tell me you didn't notice the entire Copy-paste he did with Star Wars.

Phoenix_Flyer · Jan 29, 2010 6:17 PM

Brisingr has much more originality than Eragon does, the first book has many similarities yes, but they disappear as the story goes on.
Trouble is, if you haven't read past the first book you never notice that.

#1 Jan 26, 2010 9:37 PM

The book or film?

#2 Jan 26, 2010 10:00 PM

Re: The book or film?

#3 Jan 26, 2010 10:58 PM

Re: The book or film?

#4 Jan 26, 2010 11:00 PM

Re: The book or film?

#5 Jan 27, 2010 7:09 AM

Re: The book or film?

#6 Jan 27, 2010 9:50 AM

Re: The book or film?

#7 Jan 27, 2010 10:35 AM

Re: The book or film?

#8 Jan 27, 2010 11:01 AM

Re: The book or film?

#9 Jan 27, 2010 11:06 AM

Re: The book or film?

#10 Jan 27, 2010 9:16 PM

Re: The book or film?

#11 Jan 27, 2010 10:01 PM

Re: The book or film?

#12 Jan 27, 2010 11:58 PM

Re: The book or film?

#13 Jan 28, 2010 12:05 AM

Re: The book or film?

#14 Jan 28, 2010 12:12 AM

Re: The book or film?

#15 Jan 28, 2010 12:18 AM

Re: The book or film?

#16 Jan 28, 2010 12:37 AM

Re: The book or film?

#17 Jan 28, 2010 12:38 AM

Re: The book or film?

#18 Jan 28, 2010 12:45 AM

Re: The book or film?

#19 Jan 28, 2010 12:50 AM

Re: The book or film?

#20 Jan 28, 2010 7:27 PM

Re: The book or film?

#21 Jan 28, 2010 10:12 PM

Re: The book or film?

#22 Jan 28, 2010 10:17 PM

Re: The book or film?

#23 Jan 29, 2010 11:50 AM

Re: The book or film?

#24 Jan 29, 2010 3:40 PM

Re: The book or film?

#25 Jan 29, 2010 6:17 PM

Re: The book or film?

Board footer