Staredit Network

I kind of get sick when people always say "The book was better" after they go to see the movie rendition of it. I would really like to just go, "Well duh, the movie producers had to work with trying to play out specific scenes from a book. If they had been able to be creative about it, doing what they wanted, instead of what is laid out for them, it probably would have turned out better."

Honestly though, I don't really think movie renditions of books are really that much worse then the books they portray. Maybe its just because I don't get worked up over books, but meh, I am entertained by the movies, which is fulfilling their purpose in my eyes.

Books made off of movies though, are a different story. They often times use scenes from the movies in the book, used as pictures for enhancing the story, but all they end up doing is make me want to watch the movie instead of read the book.

Books are good for time-consuming and self-enjoying part of the entertainment.

Movies are good for short-time and enjoying with many others.

Well you see, the LOTR books were awsome and the movie itself was awsome! Which goes to show you that there is a such thing as "The book was better" because when someone states this it's usualy true.

Its all opinions. I personally liked the books better though.

Hm... When it comes to movies of books, it all depends on what it is... For example, I thought that the LOTR books were better, mostly because of the details lost in translation (where did Tom Bombadil go ), but I did enjoy the movies nonetheless.

Books > Movies. Ive never had such an experiance as the first time i picked up the Bartimaeus Trilogy. It was amazing.

Well, since most movies have a book come out before the movie, of course people are going to say the book was better. Because the screen writers don't write out all the parts of the movie because it would take too long (ex. Harry Potter). People would like to see movies exactly like the book. The only two I've seen so far is Holes,The Chronicles of Narnia, and LOTR.

Hm, yes, about the length...

Don't you just love how half of the movie, "The Two Towers" consisted of Helms Deep, but it was like, 5 pages in the book? I found that interesting

Hey..I never noticed that but it's true, but the Helms Deep scenes were awsome

The book was definitely better than the movie when it comes to The Passion of the Christ.



But in all seriousness, filmmakers have to turn a 200 to 300 page book into a 100 page script, so of course the books will be better and more complete. The Lord of the Rings was amazing, but even Peter Jackson cut and changed a lot of great parts from the book.

The books are better then the movie addaptation just look what do.

-In the movie. To save money on sometimes a low budget they take out good charaters. Did you see James and the giant peach? They took out the glow worm who was almost on every page!

-The plots get shuffled so they can meet movie FCC standards. In the book Holes Stanley Yelnats is an overweight black pre-teen but at the end of the book he looses weight. In the movie he is a skinny white teenager. (not to be racist tho)
-Also people who are suppose to get killed don't. Once again in the book James and the giant peach aunt spiker and sponge get killed by the rolling peach. In the movie they get flattened in a car and still live!

-The movie tends to side track from the original book itself. In how the grinch stole christmas lots of the plots were plain new not from the original which make people think this might not be what they expected.

So overall the book is better not the movie. If you can't take 1 hour a day to read a book rather then sit down and eat food you will see a difference.
^(Hay that line is a double positive sweet!)^

In The Grinch, they simply didn't have enough material to create a full length feature. The book might take two minutes to read, and they had to extend it to a movie. Not an easy thing to do :/