Why Do Book Readers Always Say the Book Is Better Than The Film?

Question

I love watching films, much much more than reading books. It’s the Audio and Visual experience that I don’t get from reading a book that I love the most… when did you ever read a book with an original music score?

What annoys me is the amount of times I hear the saying “the book is much better than the film”.

Yes it maybe if you enjoy reading books but what about people like me who much prefer to see the film?

What does everyone think, is the book always better?

Answer 1

I never 'write' off any film as they are, at the end of the day an interpretation of a book and can't possibly (nor should they want to) capture the imagination of every person that has read the book. I agree that films look at a story through different eyes and offer an alternative interpretation which is interesting and valid in its own right. Things like soundtracks, visuals, alternative scenes or compressions can be interesting.



However the thing with reading is it something that is personal, even when reading a multi-million best seller. People create their own worlds and prose and can be intensely protective of this. It is almost like protecting their memories! It may not always be logical, but it is real and valid as emotions are.

Answer 2

It's all about the story and characters, not the medium. I'm more of a film fan myself, but usually the book is better than the film.



The book is more detailed and most everyone wants to spend more time with characters they love or places they see. The book almost always gives more of that than the movie. It's a legitimate reason, an advantage of the book medium and not something that should be dismissed.



Another reason books tend to better is that allow for more imagination. With a book you are the director, you cast all the characters, design all the places, and choose the shots. A movie will rarely ever match someones imagination. So when a book is adapted, and it's not like what a reader thought, it's disappointing.



Where book adaptations fail is when they try to condense the story rather than adapt it. As you have pointed out they are different mediums and one can't expect that a script hitting on the plot points and having all the characters from the book to automatically be good. It needs to worked on, and seriously though about. Often this does not happen and we get poor adaptations.



There are plenty of films that are better than book. The Godfather is a better film (especially when taken with part 2) than the book. Fight Club is at least as good as the book, the author even prefers the film ending. Just recently Coraline was a great adaptation.



In the end, I don't see why one can't enjoy both. You seem hypocritical in your assessment because you dismiss books just as easily as those you criticize for dismissing movies.

Answer 3

Often when a film is made based on a book a load of things are edited out, which if you've read and enjoyed a book is often a disappointment (sometimes it's a good thing, like in my opinion the lord of the rings trilogy was better as a film, but that is because I personally really dislike Tolkien's writing style) but if you look at famous examples such as Harry Potter, so much was left out that someone who hasn't read the book will miss out massive parts of the plot, to the extent that it barely made sense. Another example would be Northern Lights (or the golden compass as the film was made) great cast, but it butchered the point of the books. Also in the case of the Hitchhikers guide film, the book, the radio series and the Tv series (I love the crappy old graphics!!) were all better than the film!



When book readers say the book is better, they're not saying it because they don't like films, I absolutely love decent films, it's because we genuinely believe the book is better. There is nothing wrong with enjoying reading, it just requires a greater imagination and more concentration, reading a good book doesn't feel like effort and you certainly don't miss special effects or a soundtrack, because the story is strong enough on its own to not require that!

Answer 4

Every so often we see books being made into movies, especially after the success of movies like “The Lord of The Rings” and “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion Witch and Wardrobe.” Hollywood has the ability to turn certain books into great movies; those books are the ones that take great amounts of creativity and imagination. They are the movies that can show off the special effects like the Harry Potter and X-Men movies. Other novel based movies just don’t measure up to the novels. Nine times out of ten something is missing (left out) or just doesn’t add up to how things are in the novel.



Let’s take a look at “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.” Though it was a good idea to have a team of literary characters, but some of there for one come from different time periods so they wouldn’t be alive all at once, well Dorian Grey would have been. There were a lot of things throughout the movie that did not add up.



The most obvious, for those who know the novel, dealt with the character of Dorian Grey. For one the picture was too small, it was not kept in his room, but locked up, and the way he died was completely wrong. Other movies like “Jane Eyre” leave out important information such as her childhood; it doesn’t explain how she ended up at the school for girls among other things. “Brothers Grimm” could have had more done to it. It could have been taken further or something.



With the book version a person gets to see the story the way the author intended; they way he/she saw the story unfold. Your imagination can run wild and you can picture everything as it is described. The novels are a display of how life was during that specific time period it was written; with the movie version, the audience losses that effect. There are few literature based movies that this Literature major cannot pick apart. Novels have a certain quality and expectation, and the movie version should measure up that quality.

Answer 5

I love reading but I also love films, probably more so than reading to be honest. But even I will agree that the book is typically better than the film adaptation of it. This doesn't means the film is bad, some of my favourite movies are based on my favourite books. On the other hand some books I did not enjoy as much have been made into films I loved. American Psycho is a good example of this, the book although it made it's point more clear than the film did, was almost too graphic for me (never thought that was possible) I thought the movie more clearly expressed the humour of the book and toned down the violence, which was easier on me lol. I always compare the 2, sometimes you have to to get a better idea about one or the other.

Answer 6

Perhaps the people who say the books are better than the movies are a different sort of learner than you.



I think you are a visual learner. You need to see something in order to appreciate it. That doesn't make you wrong by any means.



I saw "Gone with the Wind" before reading the book, and immediately found the film version left out so much of the book! That is what usually happens. They have to cut scenes in order to make it into a movie. Some people just need the full scoop!



What about "Wuthering Heights"? I have yet to see a good film version. The book is so much more vivid and alive.



"Twilight" was a good movie, but nothing will compare to reading the book for the first time. Edward was how I imagined him. He wasn't Robert Pattinson at all.



I couldn't read "Pride and Prejudice", but watched the movie and then decided maybe I'd read the book. "Little Women"? Oh wow. The book put me to sleep. The movie, however, was fantastic. Same with some of Shakespeare's works - way over my head, but show me the film with Kenneth whats-his-name and I am THERE!



Oh well. To each his own. I'm thankful for the printed word and for the movies!

Answer 7

It's not JUST because the movie leaves parts out, but that is one of the reasons. Although, it's understandable. If directors followed every single detail to the colour of a character's shoelaces, then the movie would probably end up being about 4 hours long!



Another reason is because the book is a little more personal, especially if it's written in first person narrative. You feel the story through the eyes of the characters and feel compassion towards them, and have somewhat of an intimate relationship with them. As opposed to watching the film as an onlooker, there's less feeling to it.

Answer 8

I love films too. But I like to read as well. But generally speaking the content of a book can not be squeezed into a 2hr film. Hence the book is generally better in the sense you get a much more detailed plot. There are some films out there that are only really the same as the book in name as so much of the plot has been removed. Stephen King films are a classic example, in my opinion. Virtually every film that has been made is rubbish compared to the books he writes. The films are sadly lacking. One last thing that I like a bout books is you get to use your Imagination. Lets face it when you watch films ( which I love ) you are generally spoon fed. It easy to watch a film. It can be hard to read a book.

Answer 9

People think that books are better because they are more descriptive, they literally describe characters, locations, and situations. A movie does not have a lot of time to convey everything that is written by an author. Typically, people read a book and then expect the movie to live up to it, it can almost never meet expectations. Readers are given so much more information and detail in the book that their imaginations run wild and directors have different visions when conveying their sentiments on screen.

Answer 10

I'm a movie person myself, but I can see the argument for books. Usually the books are way more detailed and deeper than their film counterparts. When you read a book, you learn a lot more about the characters and their relationships. A lot of times there are parts of the story that are completely skipped over. Obviously, movie makers can't take a 600 page novel and make a page by page, 2 hour long, film adaptation.



Again, I like movies. But that's why book people like books.

Answer 11

One reason that I believe that books are generally better than movies is that they can go into a certain level of detail that movies generally can't. Don't get me wrong, I love movies, but books have more detail to them. Movies are limited to time, books are not limited in pages. Movies derived word-for-word from the book would be too long for most people to want to watch and often some details and components just don't work well on the big screen. It's easier to capture deep, prolonged thoughts of a character in words of a book than it is in a movie.



For me, books leave more opportunity to exercise my own imagination. I can imagine any actor and anyone that I know as particular characters and imagine what everything looks like. In a movie, the directors, set designers, costume designers, etc. dictate what everything will look like.

Answer 12

that is all with regard to the story and characters, not the medium. i'm extra of a action picture fan myself, yet in many circumstances the e book is extra effective than the action picture. The e book is extra unique and maximum everybody desires to spend extra time with characters they love or places they see. The e book very ordinarily provides extra of that than the action picture. it truly is a valid reason, an good thing about the e book medium and not something that must be pushed aside. yet one extra reason books tend to extra effective is that enable for extra mind's eye. With a e book you are the director, you solid each and every of the characters, layout each and every of the places, and decide the photos. a action picture will rarely ever journey someones mind's eye. So whilst a e book is customized, and it truly is unlike what a reader thought, that is disappointing. the place e book ameliorations fail is whilst they attempt to condense the story fairly than adapt it. As you have spoke of they're distinctive mediums and one won't have the capacity to assume that a script hitting on the plot factors and having each and every of the characters from the e book to directly be sturdy. It desires to labored on, and heavily although approximately. often this does not happen and we get unfavorable ameliorations. there are various movies that are extra effective than e book. The Godfather is an superior action picture (extraordinarily whilst attracted to area 2) than the e book. combat club is a minimum of as sturdy simply by fact the e book, the author even prefers the action picture ending. basically recently Coraline exchange right into a brilliant form. interior the top, i don't see why one won't have the capacity to take excitement in the two. You look hypocritical on your assessment given which you sweep aside books basically as actually as those you criticize for disregarding video clips.

Answer 13

The book will always have more detail and storyline - the film will on almost all occasions miss out some storyline to prevent it from going on too long. If a film was made identical to a book, it would probably be over 10 hours long! The book also lets you use your imagination to visualise scenes and situations so is much more exciting in that sense. Clearly, i'm a book lover, however i do love a good film also! xx

Answer 14

I think its because, when you read the book, the reader has a certain vision of what it would be like to be in the scene, but when its made into a film, it completely changes everything you imagined it to be. Plus Films leave out certain things from the books, which are normally quite important to the story

Answer 15

The book is almost always better, mainly because it's the original work and if it's good enough to make a movie out of it it's difficult to match the quality. Also, frequently the screenwriter/director adds or removes things to make the movie version more appealing to a wide audience, like adding a love story or whatever.

The only situation where I liked the movie better than the book was Everything Is Illuminated. The movie eliminated a sideplot that I didn't like in the book.

Answer 16

yer cool i really see your point that you like seeing it and hearing it and i get how it can get annoying



but , sorry your gonna hate me saying this, that every film that i have watched has missed out so much of the book (ok fair enough they cant put it all in). But, soem of the books i have read have had so much more story in them then the film and thats why i like the book more. But, some films are better then the books as the books aren't written that great or the way i like them to be and so the films are brilliant.



but yer the only time i would say that is when there isn't as much story in the film as the book

Answer 17

I find books better because you can use your imagination, and you choose what you see when you read the words. With films, you only see what is on the screen, and books are more detailed. I do like films too, especially at the cinema with the loud sounds and great picture, but some books are just way better than the films, like Twilight, and Harry Potter.

Answer 18

The film often has to cut a lot of the book out or amend the story slightly to make it more easy to follow. It followsthat hethe book is more descriptiveive and guides the imagination in a wy that a film never can

Answer 19

To some extend, movies and books related to shouldn't be compared. I agree they are different medias and so they have different ways of expressing themselves. But when the subject they both manage is better conveyed in one of them, it's true that books are first in getting that usually. While most movies really shrink book contents they are based on, there are cases in which the movie is quite faithful to the book. That's the case of Ira Levin's" Rosemary's Baby" by Roman Polanski, for instance. Of course, the opposite occurs too.

Answer 20

Many times the producers leave out a lot of details in the movie that were originally present in the book.

Answer 21

the books always seem to go into more detail than the films, although it is good to get a visual view of whats happening. your imagination can always go wild whilst reading the book. films also tend to leave some details out

Answer 22

Because a book allows you to use your imagination, to see the characters the way you want to. A film is interpreted for you by the director.



Books can explain things better than films, and also tend to be more detailed as well.

Answer 23

well i mainly say the same thing on every book i've read that the movie was 10 times better but in the twilight saga the books is better, not only becase they left out good parts of the book but also you can see yourself as the main characther in the book which makes it more great building up fantasies you've always wanted or want to experience to see what it looks like.

Answer 24

The books are always better than the movie, it expands the storyline so you get the full picture. I love movies as much as anyone but there is usually no comparison between the 2.

Answer 25

I think its because everyone has their own imagination and think better of it than anyone elses, and the images which enter their head when reading the books are much different to the film and they prefer their own mind.



Its all a psychological fact when comparing reading to watching films. Myself im a creative person and enjoy my own imagination, but id rather watch movies than read books.

Answer 26

It might be because almost every time a movie is made based on a book, there's a lot of stuff left (not to much time to put all in the movie) like for example "Harry Potter" but I agree with you, I love watching movies!!!!!!!!

Answer 27

WHEN YOU READ A BOOK, YOU CAN VISUALIZE THE SITUATIONS IN THE STORY . IT IMPROVES YOUR IMAGINARY SKILLS TOO .YOU CAN IMAGINE THE ACTOR THE WAY YOU WANT -ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THE AUTHOR . YOU WILL HAVE AN ANXIETY TO CONTINUE READING .





BUT ,WHEN IT IS A MOVIE ,THE CHARACTERS ARE FAMILIAR FACES .THERE WONT BE ANY THRILL IN VISUALIZING THEM. SOME SCENES IN THE BOOK MAY BE CUT OFF FROM THE MOVIE .IT LEADS TO A LOSS OF THRILL . SO ,BOOKS ARE MORE INTERESTING THAN FILMS .TRY READING BOOKS AND YOU WILL NOTICE THE CHANGE

Answer 28

I like the books better because they are alot more detailed and descriptive of the plot, and important parts are often left out of movies.

And I think the most important part for me is, that I get to imagine how they look, sound, etc.

Answer 29

books go into a lot more detail, and you use your imagination to visualise the locations, settings, characters etc. When you then watch the film you find there is not as much info as it is really disappointing.

Answer 30

When you read the book first you get an idea in your head of what the charecters are like, look like etc, if you then watch the film it doesnt look the way you want it too, and chunks will have been left out, so its dissapointing.

Answer 31

The book usually is better, apart from the harry potter trilogy. The movie is wayyy better. But in movies like stormbreaker the books better.



Edit: Why the thumbs down? Everyone has their opinions



Plus, book readers probably think that t.v. ruins your eye sigh and book reading is more educational

Answer 32

The book is better bcuz in movies they leave all of the good parts out.

Answer 33

I think its because whilst reading a book, you can conjure up your own image of characters and places, and are sometimes left disappointed when the movie verges away from your own vision

Answer 34

i just have to say lord of the rings my favourite movie ever, but the book was better cause it was in more detail, however i could read or watch both anytime

Answer 35

well i say that the book is better becaouse the book usually comes out first and then when u read it u sort of picure things in your head of how its supposed to go and how the characters look and stuff and the movie kind of kills it...

Answer 36

the book is always better because you use your own imagination and you create the exact setting/scene/colours/tastes/views/sounds that you want to... Movies restrict your imagination by giving it to you as the director / scene specialist / costume dept interpret it.

Answer 37

they're just saying it is presented better in book form, they both have their own qualties, but the book usually wins.

Answer 38

So far as books that have movies, the books aren't limited to a set time frame and so can get into much more depth a feature duration movie could. Movies conclude very different from the book sometimes

Answer 39

i rarely watch tv. you just don't get the same quality. i mean, try making walden into a tv set show

Answer 40

The pictures are better, for a start.