The Book or the Movie?

If a book has been made into a movie, which do you prefer to do first, see the movie or read the book? Sometimes I tend to think that to read the book first, would be 'taking the fun out' of watching the movie - since you will have already known the story.

Others argue that the book version of a movie is always better than the actual movie because of the depth that the book offers. This maybe because the movie is always limited in time whereas books have more time to develop characters and story, among other reasons. What do you think?

 

Better as a book!

 

I prefer the movie over the book simply because my book collection will be different from the type of movies that I watch. My book collection consists of things that I can learn and grow from. I go for information that deals with consciousness, healing the body, or inspirational things. I love to highlight in my books and go back to them, and read them over to keep them as references. So, I would rather see a visual or a movie because I keep my book & movie choice separate.

 

I prefer to read the book for a few reasons; I'd rather read than watch a movie, books usually offer more insight into the characters, and I find that I enjoy stories more when I can imagine my own appearances for the characters. If there's a movie I really want to watch, though, I'll watch it before I read the book. Seeing a book I enjoy made into a movie tends to be a disappointment only because it doesn't match what I imagined in my head.

 

They say pictures convey a thousand words, yet words alone have power, because a picture can easily be misinterpreted. In my experience, the book is always more fascinating, but in the grand scheme of things, neither should be weighted more than the other.

 

The book provides more detailed scenarios. It also awakens one's imagination and creativity in perceiving these scenes however you want it. Once you have read the book before the movie, the movie somehow ruins that moment and replaces them with what you see on the screen. Movies spoil the fun. Sometimes, I tell myself not to do both. But I don't want to be left out with the trends. If I would have to choose, I would read the book first then compare my perceptions to the movie.

 

I prefer to read the book first. It gives me space for imagination. When I read a book I have the imaginative license to visualise characters based on their description.

Movies sometimes erase or exagerate some scenes from the book. Some go as much as to change the whole storyline whatsoever.

 

I prefer movie to books. Books are always boring especially when you have a negative mentality. Series movies are the best, they always keep you in suspense. #TEAM MOVIES.

 

It is always quite true that the book version is always better than the actual movie. But I would actually always prefer the movie over the book though. And, will always go for the movies first!

I always found myself to have time to go see for the movie versions, and no time for the book, aren't you guys? It sounds like an excuse though?

Sometimes I also have the thought that if I already watch the movie version, then I don't have to read its book version though, might as well spend time reading other "non-movie" books.

Anyway, I love both reading and watching! ^_^

 

It has to be the book. Do you guys ever watch a film after reading the book and feel like the filmmakers missed 99.99% of the best parts? I feel that way most of the time. The only movie and series that have followed the book almost to the letter are Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones although the series eventually passed the book and they had to make things up as they went. Apart from that, nothing else just does it for me. Not even Hunger Games or Harry Potter.

 

Most of the people I know red the book before seeing the movie. I am different. I prefer to watch the movie and end indulge myself with tons of details in the book which were not shown in the movie.

 

Book, always the book! Though reading the book usually ruins the movie for me. They always end up changing something or leaving something out that I feel is important. Fifty Shades of Grey was like that for me. They left out so much and the characters we'rent what I had imagined them to be.

 

I agree with you. I try to read the book first before I see the movie. Years ago, I held out watching the Twilight movie until I had read the book. Reading the book first created some exciting anticipation about how the material would be translated to the big screen.

More recently, I caved on my usual approach and watched Gone Girl before reading the book. I find it difficult to get through the book after viewing the movie mostly due to inconsistencies between text and screen.

 

I definitely concur that reading the book first gives you somewhat of a background on what the movie is messing up. For example: the Darren Shan series, later turned into a movie, Cirque du Freak. Just so you know, the "movie" actually tries to encompass the first three books into one, but leaves out a lot of details. Additionally, not to spoil anything, but Steve Leonard (Hutcherson) is not revealed to be a killer vampire (vampaneze) until at least book six, which if you read the series ruins the whole plot line for the later half of the books. It is like starting at volume 9 (there are 12 books in the series) and wondering how and why the main characters are dying.

So I agree that books turned into movies, with the exception of a few (Hunt for the Red October by Tom Clancy) are much more Hollywood and thereby lack essential key elements that make the story what it is.

 

The only movie I ever saw that did justice to the book was Sense and Sensibility (period piece by Jane Austen) adapted to screen by Emma Thompson. All the rest somehow miss the nuance of the book entirely or simply don't have enough time for character development to get it right. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings did get quite close though; although I don't think there was enough material in The Hobbit for all those hours of film they ended up producing.

 

I definitely would pick books over movies because they are simply greater than the latter. The book's depth and it's great contibution to one's vocabulary are some of the reasons I would choose books anyday.

I love reading books than watching movies because I think it makes me more imaginative. Movies give you everything, the detailed setting (whereas some parts of the books dont offer that) an the character's appearance and their expressions. But books let your imagination run free and that's what I love about them. It really makes you think outside the borders.

 

Honestly if I start reading a book night or day I'm gonna fall asleep. Movies are more interesting to me, watching the different scenery and getting to know the characters while watching their every move Is way more interesting than using your imagination. Books are great don't get me wrong but I'll choose a movie over a book any day.

 

Books or Movie? The question is quite difficult. No doubt that watching movie is more interesting than reading a book because it shows all the scenes visually. But don't forget that, the first step of creation of movie is book. We can't imagine any movie without book. So i think both are important for me. I love reading book 'Harry Potter' and also like watching movie 'Harry Potter'.

 

I prefer reading the book first because in the movies not all that is in the book are shown and when you get to understand the book, I think watching the movie will be often.

 

Personally, I enjoy the book. Books have more depth and are always better at character development. Remember, you can only fit so much into 2 hours, but you can tell a better story in a 500 plus page book.