♥!The Young Adult Book Club!♥ discussion

393 views
Debates > Books vs. Movies

Comments (showing 1-46 of 46) (46 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Amber (new)

Amber (AmbeRenee) | 9 comments Every one knows that movies based on books are different. Like the book could be better than the movie. Or the movie could be better than the book. Or both the book and the film are as good and exciting!!!

You know Harry Potter? Well everyone knows Harry Potter series and his wild long journey that he has to go through to assassin Voltmort or what's his name. The book and the movie is alright and okay. To me they're the same. By being very very long. The films takes up about 1-2.45 hours. There is about 6 or 7 I guess. I watched them all in one day in the summer followed by 15 minute breaks. All was interesting and mind blowing.

And also What To Expect When Your Expecting. I haven't read the book, but I certainly watched the film. A comedy. I really loved the woman who is running the baby store and who expects that carrying the child will be wodeeful. When that woman got knocked up it was hell for her!!!

Another book that got turned into a film is The Hunger Games. I definitely j'adore the book! But the movie is okay. I'm kinda cool with it. Alright and good. I just don't have any connection with the movie not until Rue's dramatic and sad death which kept my mere crying throughout the whole movie about it.

Last but not least it is Twilight. I read all of the books. Some parts I do not want to explain in Breaking Dawn book was boring as hell. The films gotten me a vision. But I am currently neutral now ever since the ending. And also stunned on who had died in the dramatic and long battle between the vampire clans and the Volturi. I just couldn't believe that three of my favorite characters had died.

There are books that I really wanted to be movies. Vladimir Academy series is one. The Selection series is another. I have some others but right now I currently had forgotten them!!!

So what books that you've known had been turned into movies? Do you liked the book or the film better? Both?
If you want to you can list the books that you wanted to be turned into films.


message 2: by Pamela (new)

Pamela (WaterSpout) | 370 comments Vampire Diaries is really good! I love the books and show! Although book 5 onwards is kinda slow already...

Harry Potter books are so much better than the movies!

Eragon movie was amazing, but I'm reading Eragon right now and wow it's so much better than the movie! They're both still awesome!!


message 3: by Nikki (new)

Nikki Hoehne (NikkiRajaramlol) | 7 comments the books are always better than the movies:)


message 4: by Kate (new)

Kate (ficthoughts) | 1 comments Nikki wrote: "the books are always better than the movies:)"

I agree with this. I think there's only been two movies that I've liked more than their books ( The Notebook and Fight Club are my only exceptions)


message 5: by Leanne (new)

Leanne (LeannetheGreat) | 26 comments i agree with Kate abuot the Notebook. I have read the book and seen the movie, and I like the moview way more. But as far as most book to movie adaptations, books are way better.


message 6: by Sophia (new)

Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (BookwyrmingThoughts) | 708 comments Books before Movies (if at all possible I can get the book BEFORE the movie comes out) Dx. nuff said o_o

That way... I have a general idea instead of being totally clueless.


message 7: by Arely (new)

Arely | 2 comments Books are always the best. I don't care what people say there's just more feeeling in a book.

Books ferr dayzz!!!!


message 8: by RAI (last edited Jan 24, 2013 03:06PM) (new)

RAI | 1032 comments I thought twilight was better as a book instead of as a movie when I first saw the movie. But as the movies progressed and they got more money to make the movies, I started to like the movies better than the books. Um, I like Jane Eyre the movie better than the book. I didn't finished the book, but I feel like I like the movie better. Same goes for the tv show the vampire diaries. I like the tv show A LOT. I tried to read the first book, but I didn't get far so I just stopped and decided to stick with the show. I'm kinda wary about the upcoming Mortal Instruments movie, but only because of the cast. I've read all five books and wait impatiently for the sixth book to come out. I absolutely LOVE the series and I just hope that the movie turns out ok. The same goes for the other books coming out as movies this summer (Warm Bodies, Beautiful Creatures, and the Host)...


message 9: by Leanne (new)

Leanne (LeannetheGreat) | 26 comments I will agree with Marshanah, I love watching The Vampire Diaries, and I never really read the books. Also, earlier this year I decided I was going to get into Pretty Little Liars. I'd never really seen any episodes or read any of the books, but everyone kept saying how good it was. So I started out reading the books and watching the tv show at the same time. I actually found it really frustrating because the books and the tv show didn't match right up. So I ditched the books and just stayed with the tv show which I liked better.

Also, can't wait for Mortal Instruments movie, and City of Heavenly Fire. By far my favorite series!


message 10: by Ariadne (new)

Ariadne (Ariliesel) | 134 comments Pamela wrote: "Vampire Diaries is really good! I love the books and show! Although book 5 onwards is kinda slow already...

Harry Potter books are so much better than the movies!

Eragon movie was amazing, but I'..."

I agree with you!!, Harry Potter Books way better than the movies, but the movies were ok.
And Eragon, you have to read the four books!! I really enjoyed them, and they are so much better than the movie that made a lot of mistakes, and for me it was really plain.

Most of the time, the books are better that any other adaptation. But still I always watch the movies or shows, like Pretty Little Liars, for me books and film are really good but I consider them different stories.


message 11: by Leanne (new)

Leanne (LeannetheGreat) | 26 comments I have stated earlier on this post that I think that books are better than the movies, and I stand by that. BUT, sometimes if the book is difficult to read, it might be a good idea to watch the movie so you know generally what's going to happen. That's what I'm doing for Les Misérables I started reading the book, I've read about 100 pages, but I have already seen the movie. But with something like this, I think it's good that I know what generally is going to happen becuase the text is kind of hard to understand. That would be my one exception to the books and movies rule.


message 12: by Jennifer (new)

Jennifer (bllrmdncr) | 3 comments I have not come across a movie better than a book. I usually try to read the book afterwards because of some very disappointing experiences, the stand-out being that I finished Jurassic Park: Lost World as we were pulling into the theater parking lot. The movie wasn't that great anyways, but the book and characters were so fresh in my mind that I was angry the entire movie. It was an awful adaptation, and if I hadn't read it, I could have at least enjoyed the completely non-book element of a tyrannosaur making landfall in San Francisco. (I think it was SF.)

Added to that, I'm a bit of a purist, so I sit through the Harry Potter movies grumping, "psssshhh that so didn't happen! That's not what he said! Where are the twins! Argh!" I still love HP movies, they give such a good look to the story, and have such an amazing visualization of the world that I end up overlooking the wretched script and missing thematic elements (hello, Horcruxes in book 6?) and immersing myself in the world all over again.

If a book is being made into a movie, I will hold out and wait to read it after I see it. I did read Hunger Games first, but over a year before the movie, and I resolved not to go back and re-read it when it was filming. I love the movie, and now I can go back to the book and have a better image in my head to go along with the amazing writing. Sometimes you can't help seeing the movie first (or hearing the musical!), like with any dozen Disney movies, or Les Miserables. I loved discovering Dodie Smith's 101 Dalmatians, and Felix Salten's Bambi, and I have a shelf of books that I hope when I have a little one, they will enjoy the movies and the books equally.

One of my favorite (NonYA) series, Wizard's First Rule, by Terry Goodkind, was made into a tv series, and I barely made it through half the first episode before I had to turn it off, I thought it was so awful. I haven't watched Revolution for that reason, based on S.M. Stirling's world. I think SyFy has the worst adaptations of sci-fi-books-to-miniseries, with Dune (Frank Herbert) and Riverworld (Phillip Jose Farmer) which they messed up not once but twice! I stay away from TV series that are based on books, and skip right to reading it.

There are times that I've been grateful to a movie for being able to skip pages and pages of boring description (places, clothing, character's inner thoughts) and pan across the view of a house, or set a scene in seconds, which cannot be done in writing. Like Bella's soul-sucking depression in New Moon. Oh, kill me - no, kill trees, more trees, making extra blank pages and more description of her mooning about missing her psycho-stalker (BUT I digress), when you can just show fifteen seconds of the season passing by while she holes up in bed, not-living.

Also sometimes, I've been grateful for a movie for giving characters voices that I could not find in my own head, like reading Shakespeare for English class is just... reading... dialogue... I enjoy having faces and tones and actions put into pictures, even if Hamlet takes 4 hours to watch that way. Similarly with Jane Austen, there's a lot of non-dialogue descriptions of conversations in her books which are better adapted to screen (thank you, BBC). That style of writing isn't used anymore, and a modern editor would probably send it back to Jane, and tell her, put this into conversation for, like with quotation marks, and stuff.

Film adaptations are great for visualizing a difficult scene, or shortening a long passage, but the books is (almost) always better. I'm happier enjoying the movie, and then enjoying the book more.


message 13: by Pamela (last edited Feb 22, 2013 12:32AM) (new)

Pamela (WaterSpout) | 370 comments Jennifer wrote: "I have not come across a movie better than a book. I usually try to read the book afterwards because of some very disappointing experiences, the stand-out being that I finished Jurassic Park: Lost ..."

I've watched the first episode of The Legend of the Seeker and I thought the guy was cute. They were funny in a serious way. )


message 14: by Sophia (new)

Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (BookwyrmingThoughts) | 708 comments Pamela wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "I have not come across a movie better than a book. I usually try to read the book afterwards because of some very disappointing experiences, the stand-out being that I finished Jur..."

Legend of the Seeker? If it's the one I think you named, Best TV show on Sundays during noon when I got the famous boot from my mom. Watching sports was boring... but that's my humble opinion.

I rarely watch movies though (parents doesn't like it -_-) so I'm stuck with reading books. Sometimes I end up watching the movie before the book, but that was well before I knew the movie is also a book, lol :p


message 15: by Jennifer (new)

Jennifer (bllrmdncr) | 3 comments Again, I'm a bit of a purist, when it comes to adaptations. I understand making something fit time constraints, or a budget, but in Legend of the Seeker, there were too many characters out of place, occurrences out of place or entirely missing, completely screwed up. I get it. There are eleven books, and the series cannot promise to be word for word from the books, but they got the magic wrong. It's like if someone had butchered the way magic worked in Harry Potter. To me, it was just too massacred to be close to the series that I loved.


message 16: by Yvette (last edited Feb 22, 2013 02:51AM) (new)

Yvette Calleiro (YvetteMCalleiro) | 6 comments Books are almost always better than movies. I can't say the same when it comes to TV shows. I have found that I prefer the TV series over the books. True Blood is SO much better than the Sookie books (only because the author seemed to have lost her connection with her characters after the show came out - her last couple of books do more telling than showing). Vampire Diaries, the show, is WAY better than the books (the books got all crazy with the kitsune (sp)).

But with movies, I love losing myself in the book. Sometimes, I am pleasantly surprise with how accurate (or almost accurate) the movies are...like with the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter movies. Sometimes, I cringe over how badly the director choses actors to play the roles of characters (like the Twilight series). I try to see the movie and book as separate entities because I know that movies have restrictions and limitations. There is no point in getting all riled up because the movie isn't EXACTLY the same as the book. That attitude just ruins the movie experience.

I have yet to watch a movie that I can say is BETTER than the books. The book aways wins (although sometimes it's close to being a tie - LOTR, HP). I prefer to read the book first. Watching the movie first tends to ruin the reading experience for me so I end up not reading it. I like the discovery of things through reading. I like trying to figure it out for myself. If the movie tells me everything, it just ruins it.


message 17: by Pamela (new)

Pamela (WaterSpout) | 370 comments Jennifer wrote: "Again, I'm a bit of a purist, when it comes to adaptations. I understand making something fit time constraints, or a budget, but in Legend of the Seeker, there were too many characters out of place..."

lol i wouldn't know the difference because I haven't read the books yet! >.<


message 18: by Pamela (new)

Pamela (WaterSpout) | 370 comments Yvette wrote: "Books are almost always better than movies. I can't say the same when it comes to TV shows. I have found that I prefer the TV series over the books. True Blood is SO much better than the Sookie b..."

I agree the book is always better than the movie, but to enjoy both of them, you gotta watch the movie first lol. OMG YES! WTF is up with the kitsune? That is just messed up!


message 19: by RAI (last edited Feb 22, 2013 05:07PM) (new)

RAI | 1032 comments For me, the books in the Twilight series were SO much better than the movies. The last movies, Breaking Dawn Part 1 and 2 SUCKED. It was just SOOOOO bad! Renesmee had an animated face, Jacob says in the movie that Bella and Edward "look good together" (which he NEVER said in the book), and there's this whole stupid fighting scene that's supposed to be Alice's vision where Carlisle, Jasper, Leah, and Seth die. I was mad about that. I was glad, though, that Jane, Aero, and the other Volturi leaders died.


message 20: by Jennifer (new)

Jennifer (bllrmdncr) | 3 comments Yvette wrote: "Books are almost always better than movies. I can't say the same when it comes to TV shows. I have found that I prefer the TV series over the books. True Blood is SO much better than the Sookie b..."

Oh, the Terry Goodkind books are wayyyy better. You see more of all of them, for one thing. Although, once you pass book six, it gets preachy and moral, and incredibly involved in the magic (four pages about the inner workings of one spell, omg EDIT and save some paper, please) and it's like he came up against deadlines and had to turn in unfinished work. The parts that he talks about are very important for later, but he really lost it for a few books. First 5 are amazing, 6th great, 7-8-9 listen to the abridged audio books, and they get so short it's worth reading the last two.

There's so much more depth that they cannot bring to the tv series because it's a lot of talking, flashbacks that build a character's history. I'm also afraid that they made Magda's creature guy too much like Gollum. I just couldn't take it.

Twilight? Don't get me started. >:P


message 21: by Pamela (new)

Pamela (WaterSpout) | 370 comments Marshanah wrote: "For me, the books in the Twilight series were SO much better than the movies. The last movies, Breaking Dawn Part 1 and 2 SUCKED. It was just SOOOOO bad! Renesmee had an animated face, Jacob says i..."

I cried when Carlisle died! I thought it was real!


message 22: by Beatrice (new)

Beatrice ~ Confessions of a Pinay Bookaholic (beatricemasalunga) Harry Potter = Books are better. I'm disappointed with the 6th movie.

Percy Jackson = Books are better.

Flipped = both book and movie

Twilight = To be honest, the movie is an epic finale. THAT SCENE is a jaw dropper. I almost leave the movie theater.

The Perks of Being A Wallflower = both book and movie

Hunger Games = Book

A Walk to Remember = the movie is better.

Safe Haven = Both! There are slight changes, but if you haven't read the book yet it's okay if you watch it. The story line is the same.


message 23: by RAI (last edited Feb 22, 2013 09:26PM) (new)

RAI | 1032 comments Pamela wrote: "Marshanah wrote: "For me, the books in the Twilight series were SO much better than the movies. The last movies, Breaking Dawn Part 1 and 2 SUCKED. It was just SOOOOO bad! Renesmee had an animated ..."

I did, too! :'(


message 24: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (booklover723) | 16 comments I love vampire diries and pretty littie littars i never read the books lying game is good but i also like the books the nine lives of chloe king is good i perfer the books to to the tv show.


message 25: by Kylie (new)

Kylie (kyliealice) | 2 comments I love The Hunger Games book, but the movie was definitely not as good as the book. I just finished Perks of Being a Wallflower today and watched the movie after I finished and the movie is alright, but the book is 8000 times better. I haven't seen Breaking Dawn part 2 yet.


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

Kylie wrote: "I love The Hunger Games book, but the movie was definitely not as good as the book. I just finished Perks of Being a Wallflower today and watched the movie after I finished and the movie is alright..."

I agree with you :)


message 27: by [deleted user] (new)

Breaking Dawn pt 2 was ok...better than the rest of the series that's for sure


message 28: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (booklover723) | 16 comments I finished the hunger games book within the week the movie was coming out and after i saw the movie i disponted the movie was not as good as book i thought it good but it could have been better.


message 29: by Orianne (new)

Orianne (Oreo_101) To tell the truth I think the book is always better then the film. This is because as you read the book you make your own interpretations of the characters and setting of the book. However, compared to a movie of a book it's the usually the filmmakers interpreations of the book they're trying to make and the problem with that is the filmmakers have generalise there own interpretations with millions of the readers at the same time as well. But it doesn't mean the film is bad it wouldn't be as true to the book.

But then, with all those generalised interpretations a film of a book could have more a meaning to all the readers out there ss well.

I hope I don't sound to harsh, if I do I am sorry. And please forgive me for my poor grammar I am half sleep getting ready for school whilr commenting on this debate. ;)


message 30: by Anya (new)

Anya Allyn | 1 comments I think the problem with movies adapted from books is that they are a stripped-down version of a book. You have less dialogue, less subtleties, less insight into characters' minds. A movie is only an hour and a half to two hours and can't show everything the book did.

I have to say I did like The Hunger Games movie, and for some reason, it brought lots of things alive for me that didn't come alive for me in the book.


message 31: by Sophia (new)

Sophia (Sophia_Sparkles) | 192 comments Of course, I think it depends on the book. The book is usually better, but that doesn't mean that the movie is bad at all-- it just gives a different insight and just different. When you read the book, you have to imagine the scene, and it's your own personal experience and you can compare it with others who have read the same book. With movies, everyone has a similar experience because it is visual and audio. They are also more condensed. I think the reason most people like books more is because the movies are shorter and don't often include all of the details. Also, because everyone has a different, personal experience with books and with movies they're usually different, the readers are disappointed because they had a different experience while watching the movie.
I read The Hunger Games and then watched the movie and although they were different I loved them both. I just read The Great Gatsby (after seeing trailers and knowing who the actors are) and pictured it like that, but because I haven't seen the movie yet I'm sure it will still be different. I am excited to see it because it can help me understand the book better and the book can help me understand the movie.
I know this is a really cheesy, little-kid series, I reaaaally wish that Gallagher Girls Boxed Set would become movies!


message 32: by A. (new)

A. (someinfinity) | 136 comments Often times, I like the book better than the movie. But you know what movie was better than the book? Stardust. Stardust by Neil Gaiman I adored the book, but the movie was just awesome. And so much more fun! A lot of the book was included in the movie but they added a lot of details that made it so much better.


Eeverythingsmagic | 10 comments Oh lord weeeeelll. There's so many books that have been turned into movies/shows. For example twilight and harry potter the books were definitely better than the movies because there's much more detail in the books whereas the vampire diaries I find the tv show much MUCH better than the books...

ALSO I can't wait for the movie city of bones to be released this summer!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay


message 34: by Darlene (new)

Darlene Deluca (darlenedeluca) | 13 comments Most of the time, books tend to be better than the movie versions, but sometimes a movie can enhance the book. I found this was true with The Time Traveler's Wife and a coming-of-age novel called Snow Falling on Cedars.


message 35: by Valkyrie (new)

Valkyrie Cain | 18 comments The books are always better than the movies. Movies tend to skip many important events, or change some major scenes. Some also add unnecessary things. I have no idea how people understood the last few harry potter movies without reading the books. Also in divergent, how do Edward and Myra suddenly dissappear? In the book Edward is stabbed and Myra leaves with him.

Another factor which causes books to be better is that when books are written in first person many of the character's thoughts are unable to be portrayed on screen. This can often cause confusion and misunderstanding.


message 36: by Mindy (new)

Mindy Diamond I think that as a general rule the books are usually better than the movies.
Harry Potter, I was crazy about the books but not so about the movie. truth is I think the producers did the best they could but it's not easy cramming a complicated descriptive 700 page book into 2.5 hours on film. Thoughts cannot be expressed and many cute parts had to be left out. I don't think I would have understood totally what was going on had I not read the books, but it was nice to watch as an accompaniment to the book. kind of the cherry on top.

The worst thing you can do to a book is change it when you turn it into a movie. That's what I loved about the hunger games movie...it was exactly as the book told it. The only cast member I would change is Josh Hutcherson, he wasn't as passionate as Peeta. But the rest were great.

Narnia was actually probably the only movie I loved the same, if not more, than the book.


message 37: by Mindy (new)

Mindy Diamond The Perks of being a Wallflower is another movie that's hard to get if you don't read the book first, because there's so much thoughts, feelings, and flashbacks you can get confused if you didn't read the book first. But still amazingly done


message 38: by Elsa (new)

Elsa (elsa_katt) When it comes to YA I think that books are always better than movies. I mean there must be a few exceptions, but from what I've seen they just always twist the book around to fit some stereotypic teen ideal they have in their heads. I'm still so angry about the DUFF movie, it's not the fact that the plot has little to do with the book, it's just that we've seen the same plot over and over and it's not the only type of YA book they've done that to.


message 39: by RAI (new)

RAI | 1032 comments City of Bones book was better than the movie.


message 40: by Becky (new)

Becky (beckybubbles52) | 7 comments for me, I don't find movies mentally stimulating.
I get bored easily watching them.
books are 1,000 times better.


message 41: by Zee (new)

Zee Gray | 1 comments This booktuber does a great review of books vs movies! Love her editing style and intro video!!! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhtoH...


message 42: by BlackTea (new)

BlackTea | 16 comments Percy Jackson the books were, in my opinion, way better than the movie.


message 43: by J (new)

J Becky wrote: "for me, I don't find movies mentally stimulating.
I get bored easily watching them.
books are 1,000 times better."


Same.


message 44: by Pickle (new)

Pickle | 1 comments its all about opinions but ive found the odd movie better than the book:

Jaws
The Midwich Cuckoos
The Godfather
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70s remake)
The Thing
No Country for Old Men
The Exorcist = both as good


message 45: by M.J. (last edited Oct 31, 2016 11:43AM) (new)

M.J. Colewood | 2 comments I think on balance, and it is especially evident from the many comments posted here, that books offer far more depth and also allow a more personal interpretation of characters and locations. With a film there is no imagining what the place looks like, there it is... right in front of you. And what are the striking features of the protagonist? Gone in an instant is your question, because you have the guy standing before your very eyes.

However, if an image is worth a thousand words then how many tomes should a film be worth with its on average 144,000 frames? In that respect, films fail to meet the mark, but then literature and celluloid are not scientific disciplines and cannot be measured as such.

Where I have found films certainly underperform consistently is in the area of YA books, I cannot, however, help but notice more high-brow books, which one would assume could never be matched by film, do not have such one-way traffic.

For example, Angela's Ashes is a beautiful book but what a artistic portrayal by the director Alan Clarke! They are on a par for me. So is the Shawshank Redemption where the screenwriter has taken a central theme only hinted at in the original story and made it triumphant on the silver screen, namely 'hope'. Magnificent script adapatation, with all of Stephen King's eternal lines kept safe within its body and then the music score on top. Both works are victories: one of the greatest films and arguably the greatest novella.

Where I enjoyed the film far more than its masterpiece of literature was The Name of the Rose. Which for some, if not many, will be seen as a sacrilegious declaration. There is no doubting Umberto Eco's genius as writer and historian, but the novel was overflowing with Latin and I gained a greater sense of medieval melancholy in the movie than in the book, which gave it a more sympathetic tone. That said both treatments of the story inspired me greatly to write my first novel, The Last Treasure of Ancient England, and include Latin riddles and cyphers, but not too many.

And one 'book' that can never, ever, be equalled in film is anything on Sherlock Holmes. TV series have come and gone and entertained us all, but none have come close to submerging the viewer wholly into the dastardly smog of Victorian London and immersed us fully in the turmoil of Holmes' eccentricity.

But what if we were to turn the tables? Consider this dilemma: could the book version of Amélie ever be as good as the film? I sincerely doubt it. And why is that?

One thing is certain though, no matter how much we loved the book, we are drawn helplessly like moths to the silver screen as soon as it is released at the cinemas.


message 46: by Lizzie (new)

Lizzie Kelly (autumnwolf52) | 25 comments I do not compare books to movies for simple reasons. A: it is a different media. Film verses a book with words.actors playing characters than imagination playing characters
And B a book has an author a film a director they aren't the same person which means the piece of art will be different.


back to top