The Long Discussed Debate- The Book or the Movie?

[Warriorstrike]

I'm sure you've come across this type of debate question at some point in your lives. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the question goes something like:

Do you prefer the book or the movie adaptation of the book?

And you'll most certainly hear:

Which one is better?

While the answer to the question may be up to the individual himself and the possibility of there being no correct answer is high, I'm curious to see what you think. Some people say that the movie brings out aspects of the book that should have been explored further or is more interesting to watch, while those who say that the book is better argue that, since the book is usually the original foundation of the story, nothing can compare to how it was initially intended to be consumed (by being read). Of course, many could also justify that some books are better than movies, some movies better than books (but for time's sake, this question goes generally toward the main idea). What do you think? Which do you prefer? Do you think the book or the movie is better? If there was a movie adaptation of a book, would you choose to watch the film over the book? Why or why not?

While we're on the same subject, are there any movie adaptations of books you've enjoyed or would like to see be made in the future?

[ArcticGalaxy]

It really seriously depends. Some movie adaptions to the books, in my opinion, are very very good, such as Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and Divergent. The one I absolutely loath is the Percy Jackson movies. The books are so much better, and the movie just basically ruined it all.

So I'm guessing my answer to this is more....mixed. xD

[Morgra]

Hmm, great topic. While people usually tend to gravitate towards one or the other, I am actually unbiased about this one. Both movies and books each have their own characteristics that make them stand out and captivate someone. I also think that books tend to grab a certain audience and movies tend to grab another audience. Some people naturally like movies over books and vice versa.

 I am currently reading A Game of Thrones after watching the first few episodes of the tv series. I wanted to read some through the book, then watch the next episode and sort of compare the book and the show by keeping the tv series at the current point of where I had read. I ended up canning that method and just finished the first season of the tv series a few weeks ago. Now, I haven't been much of a reader since my middle school years and this is why: In 7th and 8th grade we had to do a huge writing assignment on our reading every week. We had to write how we felt about what we were reading, etc, in 600 words. Every...single...week. Lets just say, when I got to my freshman year in high school, I was almost entirely against reading. I did read some in high school, but usually couldn't finish the book. But now several years later, I've picked up a few books and actually am enjoying the experience again. Now, with Game of Thrones, I like both the show and the book equally. And watching parts of the show sorta tampered with my mind before I got to the book. I already had a visual for what the characters looked like and what was going to happen for the first quarter of the book. This didn't make the reading boring however, because the book adds detail and made me understand parts of the tv series a bit better. I think i'm going to end up watching and reading the whole series haha.

My other example is Harry Potter. I've read most of the books and seen all of the movies. I think I read parts of Sorcerer's Stone before I watched the movie, but ended up watching some the other movies before I read any more of the books. I like certain qualities about the books more and certain qualities about the movies more.

So, in conclusion, I can't really say if I like books more than movies or the other way around. I grew to hate books because of those writing assignments, but am slowly getting pulled back into them. I'm also not that critical when it comes to movie adaptations of books because I usually don't read the books before I watch the movies. I'm sure other people who reply to this will have more of a preference because they're more of a reader.

And as for your final question, I was going to say the Alex Rider series by Anthony Horowitz but I Googled it and there seems to be a movie I didn't know about that was made in 2006, but it looks kinda weird. I might have to check it out later.

The one i'd really like to see but there's no way anyone would ever make it is a movie of is The Sight by David Clement Davies. The CGI wolves in the new Jungle Book were really good and would look nice for another wolf movie. But it's kinda like how some people want to see a movie of Warriors, but that doesn't even seem like something you would ever see in theaters.

[Kynvuu]

Ah the long debated question of this generation. xD
For me, I'd generally lean to the movie adaption of the book. Reason being, film is something that has always interested me. Despite Hollywood messing up a few good moments in the books, I think for the most part they have done a pretty good job. Humans have been turning works of literature into physical/visual adaptations for thousands of years, and I think it's the same idea all around: A moment is more defined when you see it happen v.s. when you imagine it happening.

Books are very subjective, and allows the reader to envision the writer's words in their own way. Yes, I won't argue that sometimes imagining the scenario in your head with character looks, setting, conditions, etc. could be a way cooler depiction then what the movie directors choose to go with, but I think putting words to a picture helps people to understand and enjoy more.

There's also another side to this too. Since no one reads the same book in the same way, you could have a totally different understanding of the book than the director who's in charge of adapting it. You're seeing the movie through his/her eyes instead of your own, and generally that could lead to a distaste for the film/story itself.

But let's also not forget that a writer can write as much as he/she wants. A director has a very hard task of fitting an entire book (Most novels chronicle a few days, even weeks or months) into perhaps a maximum of 2 hours. Not only that, but the director also has to worry about actors and staff, keeping the movie within budget, sounds, lighting, CGI, and a whole plethora of other things a writer doesn't necessarily have to worry so much about. Sure, a writer can spend loads of energy planning out characters, plot, etc., but they have no creative limits, whereas a director does.

On the contrary, there are plenty of movie adaptations of books that have been horrible. But I don't think that it's ever the movie's fault or the director's fault. There are so many culminating factors such as the inability to cover a large plot in a small allotted time, actors who don't fit the character, a few bad/cheesy lines in the screen-write, etc. Which is why it honestly really depends. Then of course, you have to take in the personal taste of the viewer and all things of the sorts. It's a very hard choice, but I think the movie's where it's at for me.

[Kerriki]

Oh boy, this question xD

For me, one of my biggest regrets as a child (and still kinda today) is not being one of those kids that always reads. I really wish I had been a reader growing up, but it's so hard for me to just sit down and read let alone even finding a book I'm interested in

Book vs movie? Movie. Book vs its movie adaptation...? I'd have to go with both. I'd read the book, note the characters, all the details, etc, basically anything that movies don't usually explain well or at all. After reading it I'd go see the movie because I love movies and sometimes it's nice to see visuals and how creative people can be with film or animation c:

So yeah, both ^^

[OutofBreath]

Books. I just like the books better than most movies of the book, since movies usually change the stories a lot.

[Reaper]

I prefer the books more. The movies sometimes leave out parts and changes the plot of it which can ruin the movie.

[Wyldercat]

The book most of the time. Percy Jackson ain't got nothing on the Hobbit in terms of inaccuracies.

[Aclediptus]

Although a movie adaption can be good sometimes (e.g. Mirrormask), I like to stick to the books a lot more. I've been into books for a really long while, personally I think that the books give much more immersion and allows me to think up the scenario by myself, they are also more clear when it comes to explaining a personality or messaging the moral of the story.

[Warriorstrike]

It really seriously depends. Some movie adaptions to the books, in my opinion, are very very good, such as Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and Divergent. The one I absolutely loath is the Percy Jackson movies. The books are so much better, and the movie just basically ruined it all.

So I'm guessing my answer to this is more....mixed. xD

I remember disliking how different the Percy Jackson movies were from the book, as well, but the book series was indeed quite wonderful. I believe I remember reading somewhere that the author of the series disliked the movie adaptations, as well, although he was legally bound to allow them to make a movie after signing over the rights for them to produce a film.

Hmm, great topic. While people usually tend to gravitate towards one or the other, I am actually unbiased about this one. Both movies and books each have their own characteristics that make them stand out and captivate someone. I also think that books tend to grab a certain audience and movies tend to grab another audience. Some people naturally like movies over books and vice versa.

 I am currently reading A Game of Thrones after watching the first few episodes of the tv series. I wanted to read some through the book, then watch the next episode and sort of compare the book and the show by keeping the tv series at the current point of where I had read. I ended up canning that method and just finished the first season of the tv series a few weeks ago. Now, I haven't been much of a reader since my middle school years and this is why: In 7th and 8th grade we had to do a huge writing assignment on our reading every week. We had to write how we felt about what we were reading, etc, in 600 words. Every...single...week. Lets just say, when I got to my freshman year in high school, I was almost entirely against reading. I did read some in high school, but usually couldn't finish the book. But now several years later, I've picked up a few books and actually am enjoying the experience again. Now, with Game of Thrones, I like both the show and the book equally. And watching parts of the show sorta tampered with my mind before I got to the book. I already had a visual for what the characters looked like and what was going to happen for the first quarter of the book. This didn't make the reading boring however, because the book adds detail and made me understand parts of the tv series a bit better. I think i'm going to end up watching and reading the whole series haha.

My other example is Harry Potter. I've read most of the books and seen all of the movies. I think I read parts of Sorcerer's Stone before I watched the movie, but ended up watching some the other movies before I read any more of the books. I like certain qualities about the books more and certain qualities about the movies more.

So, in conclusion, I can't really say if I like books more than movies or the other way around. I grew to hate books because of those writing assignments, but am slowly getting pulled back into them. I'm also not that critical when it comes to movie adaptations of books because I usually don't read the books before I watch the movies. I'm sure other people who reply to this will have more of a preference because they're more of a reader.

And as for your final question, I was going to say the Alex Rider series by Anthony Horowitz but I Googled it and there seems to be a movie I didn't know about that was made in 2006, but it looks kinda weird. I might have to check it out later.

The one i'd really like to see but there's no way anyone would ever make it is a movie of is The Sight by David Clement Davies. The CGI wolves in the new Jungle Book were really good and would look nice for another wolf movie. But it's kinda like how some people want to see a movie of Warriors, but that doesn't even seem like something you would ever see in theaters.

That's a very nice answer. I used to go back and forth from reading and watching the movies with the Harry Potter series in a similar way that you did with Game of Thrones. It's a neat way to experience both book and movie, isn't it? ^^ I like your future movie adaptation thoughts, as well.

Ah the long debated question of this generation. xD
For me, I'd generally lean to the movie adaption of the book. Reason being, film is something that has always interested me. Despite Hollywood messing up a few good moments in the books, I think for the most part they have done a pretty good job. Humans have been turning works of literature into physical/visual adaptations for thousands of years, and I think it's the same idea all around: A moment is more defined when you see it happen v.s. when you imagine it happening.

Books are very subjective, and allows the reader to envision the writer's words in their own way. Yes, I won't argue that sometimes imagining the scenario in your head with character looks, setting, conditions, etc. could be a way cooler depiction then what the movie directors choose to go with, but I think putting words to a picture helps people to understand and enjoy more.

There's also another side to this too. Since no one reads the same book in the same way, you could have a totally different understanding of the book than the director who's in charge of adapting it. You're seeing the movie through his/her eyes instead of your own, and generally that could lead to a distaste for the film/story itself.

But let's also not forget that a writer can write as much as he/she wants. A director has a very hard task of fitting an entire book (Most novels chronicle a few days, even weeks or months) into perhaps a maximum of 2 hours. Not only that, but the director also has to worry about actors and staff, keeping the movie within budget, sounds, lighting, CGI, and a whole plethora of other things a writer doesn't necessarily have to worry so much about. Sure, a writer can spend loads of energy planning out characters, plot, etc., but they have no creative limits, whereas a director does.

On the contrary, there are plenty of movie adaptations of books that have been horrible. But I don't think that it's ever the movie's fault or the director's fault. There are so many culminating factors such as the inability to cover a large plot in a small allotted time, actors who don't fit the character, a few bad/cheesy lines in the screen-write, etc. Which is why it honestly really depends. Then of course, you have to take in the personal taste of the viewer and all things of the sorts. It's a very hard choice, but I think the movie's where it's at for me.

You make a very good point there. It's often remarkable what directors and everyone else who is working on the production of a film are able to accomplish with such limited amount of time and resources. While, of course, there are also some creative limits for a writer (especially when a book goes through editing) I've never really thought about it having such a larger degree of creative freedom than a movie; this made me think a bit.

Oh boy, this question xD

For me, one of my biggest regrets as a child (and still kinda today) is not being one of those kids that always reads. I really wish I had been a reader growing up, but it's so hard for me to just sit down and read let alone even finding a book I'm interested in

Book vs movie? Movie. Book vs its movie adaptation...? I'd have to go with both. I'd read the book, note the characters, all the details, etc, basically anything that movies don't usually explain well or at all. After reading it I'd go see the movie because I love movies and sometimes it's nice to see visuals and how creative people can be with film or animation c:

So yeah, both ^^

Ah, that's true. The movies have such a unique way of bringing the story-telling to life in a visual way, while the book plays more of a role inside your head rather than in front of your eyes. I think many of us sometimes prefer the movie, as well, for some of the reasons that you've mentioned. Not all of us are big readers, so I can see how the film would be enjoyed much more, in some ways. c:

Books. I just like the books better than most movies of the book, since movies usually change the stories a lot.

I prefer the books more. The movies sometimes leave out parts and changes the plot of it which can ruin the movie.

The book most of the time. Percy Jackson ain't got nothing on the Hobbit in terms of inaccuracies.

I'm personally a big lover of reading, (and movies) so I can relate to many of the things you've mentioned. I think one of the fears of readers is having a book they love become tarnished by a poor representation of the book by having it adapted into a movie. Even if it's quite a good stand-alone production, I think many of us still long for better accuracy, in terms of plot detail, intention, actors' portrayals, etc. cx Although as suggested in some of the previous comments, with the resources and time that goes into making a movie, I can see how it wouldn't realistically be possible for the adaptation to include everything that the books do (which can, in a way, make the books even more magical), and those who make the movies do seem to do their best. I think quite a few film-adapted outcomes have done quite well, while others, not so much. Interesting thoughts.

Although a movie adaption can be good sometimes (e.g. Mirrormask), I like to stick to the books a lot more. I've been into books for a really long while, personally I think that the books give much more immersion and allows me to think up the scenario by myself, they are also more clear when it comes to explaining a personality or messaging the moral of the story.

I would have to say that the book is often more immersive for me, as well, in many cases, although it depends on the genre of the book/movie adaptation; with books that have many action-packed scenes, I think the movie would be more immersive, but if it were about something a bit more intellectual/thought-provoking, the book may be more immersive. I've run into the situation, too, where I would prefer and stop to speculate on an idea or character in the story, and while you can easily set down a book to ponder, I've found that it's hard to do this in a movie where there is no pause or replay (which is kind of interesting, too... It can make you feel like the character does, in a way, in that you aren't able to stop the time in progressing.) I would have to agree with you that the book can offer a bit more insight into the story, as well, and it allows the consumer more freedom to paint the mental image of the story.

I've loved reading your thoughts to this subject so far. I find it interesting how varied yet similar the opinions are in terms of those who prefer the movie, the book, or both adaptations.