Which was better: the book or the movie?

Almost every single movie based on a book the book is better. The two biggest examples Eragon Harry Potter

One of my earliest experiences with this was with the book 101 Dalmations. I read it when I was younger and saw the movie when I was around 20. The movie was good but the book was way better.

What i feel is... If the movie is shown as the book describes the story then it will always be better than the book... But if the movie makes even a single mistake... the book becomes better... It also depends whether we read the book or watch the movie first...

I have to say, Practical Magic was a fantastic movie. The book, not so much. That would be the one and only time where a book wasn't better than the movie. Even the Harry Potter movies weren't as good as the books (IMHO).

Both are good in their own circumstances. Books are really good to learn. Whereas movies will give good entertainment.

I think Harry Potter books are better than the movie... Its complete and very detailed than the movie... Also, the book is complete... Some parts in the movie are not shown... Also books are better because you can feel that you are there and imagination really works...

If you like reading then books are usually better than films as they can expresss what the characters are feeling and why they do things. Films have to condense things too much and miss lots out. The Harry Potter films are brilliant but miss so much out that was crafted for a reason into the books. I think The War of the Worlds and The Day of the Triffids were also better as books but films to bring the works to a wider audience. I was so disappointed in the Dreamcatcher film after reading the Stephen King book. I thought it would have made a brilliant film but the producers did not do it justice.

The movie was way better than the book which i found a bit confusing. I'm referring to the book written by Ian Fleming "GoldFinger". It was a bit congusing because of the names for the characters they used in the book and kind of left me wanting to see a visual and i think the movie just did that. It left out some scenes of course but the story line wasn't altered at all and still managed to beat the book!

I have read a few books in my time and found the book to be better than the movie. It seems that the book shows a little more creativity and a more in depth look at the characters sometimes. I have read books by Stephen King and a lot of times the books were better. However, some movies proved just as good as the book. An example of a really good book was "The Dark Half" by King himself. I was not enamored with the movie version several years back. Now "Misery" was a book he wrote and the movie was just as astounding. Sometimes it just depends on the individual's interpretation.

I think the book is almost always better than the movie just because the book is longer and goes into detail. I'd like to think of an example where it's the other way around and I thought the movie was actually better. Well, Alfred Hitchock's "Psycho" (which is my favorite movie) is better than the book it was based on by Robert Bloch. The book is okay, but Hitchcock eliminated and changed just the right things to make the movie a more concise, fast-moving piece of storytelling.

Most of movie come from the books series and also some of books come from movie. For instance was Harry Potter.. :)