Mo’s comment > Likes and Comments
2 likes · Like
agreed
Its true, the book is usually better than the movie! This book was better than the movie!
The movie sucked because the director was too scared to spend any money, scared he wouldn't make it back. Newsflash, if he had spent the money he would've made a huge profit, but he screwed it up. Look at Harry Potter, they spent so much money on those, but they followed the books and made a huge profit.
Books have nothing written in stone, it leaves your imagination to create the character and story to link to experience you have- making it relatable- movies force things to be set in a certain way- forcing the audience with one way of seeing your favourite fictional worlds. The conclusion- BOOKS ARE ALWAY BETTER!!!!
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
chinami
(new)
Mar 21, 2014 04:13AM
agreed
reply
|
flag
Its true, the book is usually better than the movie! This book was better than the movie!
The movie sucked because the director was too scared to spend any money, scared he wouldn't make it back. Newsflash, if he had spent the money he would've made a huge profit, but he screwed it up. Look at Harry Potter, they spent so much money on those, but they followed the books and made a huge profit.
Books have nothing written in stone, it leaves your imagination to create the character and story to link to experience you have- making it relatable- movies force things to be set in a certain way- forcing the audience with one way of seeing your favourite fictional worlds. The conclusion- BOOKS ARE ALWAY BETTER!!!!
