Do you like better the book or the movie?

I think so much of it depends on whether the writer was involved in the production of the movie or if they weren't. Generally, I will read the book before the movie comes out so I already have in my mind how I think things should go. I'm a big Stephen King fan and I had read " The Shining" well before the movie with Jack Nicholson came out. Well overall I thought the movie and the book were lightyears away from each other. It was nothing like the book and I was rather disappointed. And then I found out that Stephen King had little to do with the screenplay and production of the movie and he didn't like the way it was done! There was another version of the movie done with Steven Webber as the lead and it was so much better, more true to the book and guess what? Yup. Stephen King was strongly envolved in that version. I think with Harry Potter there was so much amazing detail in the books that they had to pick key sections to focus on for the Movie but the author was in the thick of it and worked on the screenplay with them. I think that's why so many fans like us loved both the books and the movies! I agree with you about the Lord of the Rings books since RR Tolkien had so much detail and so many characters that I too found it confusing. I loved the movies and I think they really captured the essence of the books. It was so much easier to follow than the books since at time RR went on tangents and I wouldn't know if I could skip all the details or if I really would miss something if I did!! Be Well!

Most of the times the book is much better than the movie. But in some case like LOTR the movie does justice to the book so when you reread the book you can put a face on the characters. Harry potter, I think is the same, whenever I read this book I can imagine hermione, ron, and harry the way they are in the movie. Without the movie, I think my imagination could have limited me. I'm fan of Dexter too but I haven't read the book. There are some books though that I could never any movie doing justice to it. One of them is Gabriel Garcia's One Hundred Days of solitude. The characters are too robust to be played by any actor that I know of. A movie wouldn't do any justice to it at all.

This is something that goes both ways. In my opinion, sometimes the movie is better than the book, but other times the movie can be disappointing. I guess in most cases, we have read the book, and have high expectations for the movie, that if it doesn't meet them, then we are disappointed. On the other hand, if we see a movie we like, we will go out of our way to read the book, but with the same expectation. All in all, it probably has something to do with what happens first!

I like the book better. The book is always more complete than the movie. There are certain restrictions in movies that doesn't give justice on how good the book is. There are time limits, censorship ratings, budget...

I like better the books rather than the movie. Because in book, each thing has more details. And we can visualize those thing using our imagination. And each person has their own visualization about what they read in book. And sometimes the visualization in the movie is not detail like its written in the book. So sometimes, when we watch the movie after we read the book, we will find many differences between the book and the movie, and sometimes that difference can make the story not like what we expect.

It's impossible to say which is better since they are two completely different mediums. In movies you get a fantastic audio-visual experience of the story, in a book you create your own experience in your head, and I think that is the biggest advantage of the book. The movie is just someone's (director) interpretation of the book (or the script). I prefer books because I create my own characters, places, colors, sounds and so on ... there are endless possibilities. After, all the imagery that remains in your memory is the same: be it from a book or a movie. The movie can be seen again, creating the same experience. Whith the book you can always imagine different things. It probably has to do with the time: you consume a movie in a short period while the book is read more in detail and longer. I love seeing a good movie (I probably watch more movies than read books!) but I prefer a good book. Another indicative thing is that I have never liked the movie better than the book - wether I read the book before (in most cases) or after the movie.

i definitely prefer books over movies especially when the book has made a huge impact to me. the books have all the details unlike the movies which have somewhat become spliced and impossible to understand especially when you havent read the book yet. there are movies though that i really enjoy as much as the books but i really still prefer books over their movies.

I believe people do have different likes and dislikes. I understand that maybe you are really a bookworm that's why you love reading very much. In my case, reading sounds boring. I easily feel tired and sleepy when I am reading something, especially if it's a novel or a very long story. I cannot find happiness and enjoyment on reading books. If I were to choose between reading and watching movies or tv shows, I'd prefer to watch movies because it would be easier for me to understand the whole story by watching the action. I believe I am a visual learner; therefore I can easily comprehend something by watching it. I also enjoy watching the actions especially when I am with my boyfriend or with my friends.

I feel that movies are better than books,bcoz in movies we can see the stories and understand which improves our practical knowledge will in books we can only read but cannot watch it!

I like the movie and the book but the book is still the best. There are just so many details in the book that are not found in the movie and some parts not shown in the movie are really essential in the story. However, I understand though because I think movie makers follow certain rules that would be more suitable for motion pictures. I'm not sure if they do but they always do a good job in movies.

i certainly agree with you tanchyka. there are instances when the book is a lot better than the movie and vice versa. but unless you read the book and watch the movie on the book you've read, you won't know the difference. still, i go for reading the book version of a movie. like in the godfather movie of marlon brando, reading the book before going and seeing the movie gives you a fill of the movie gaps. if i have watched the movie before reading mario puzo's book, i would have not finished it... it's simply the pacing of the movie overrunning the speed of reading...

I would prefer books to movies.. but both should be the best combination. Reading the book first and then followed by watching the movie. coz movie can't show all the actions and scenes from every pages.. but it visualize the scene. it makes us know and comprehend the conditions and situations better. while book describe every details of the story, from the outfits, environment, and word stressing. The only disadvantage of reading books is we need to imagine everything...and sometimes it is very blur image. so, combining both is the best.. reading books should understand the whole story and watch movie to visualize the real image.

I like the book better. Because some important scenes are not in the movies.

It cuts both ways to read the book or watch the movie. If you got rich imagination, I suppose, it's better to read the original work, then you may film your own movie in your mind while you are reading the book, and have a lot fun in appreciating sentence by sentence, word by word...It should be miraculous to enjoying sences flashing over your mind. Regarding the movie created after the book, there must be recomposition to the original work because it was made by screenwriters who must have added their own understanding to the original work, therefore it will cover up your own feeling. However, the movie indeed gives the more intuitionistic, visible, dynamic feeling, so it's good on the other way.

Generally, I tend to prefer the books more because they encompass the whole plot, even the small ones that sometimes have significance towards how the story finishes. On the other hand, movies tend to show only the main plot because they have to jam-pack everything into 2-3 hours and they obviously can't show everything in the story. But the advantage of movies is that everything that you have imagined from reading the book actually comes to life, and you can now visualize the scenario and environment and everything around. Well, I guess there are pros and cons to everything.....so I'll just go with whatever comes my way; if I have the book, I read it and if I can watch the movie, I'll watch it!

Well as a movie fan I always prefer to watch a movie adaptation of a novel and then if I enjoyed the movie I will go on and read the book, usually getting more out of it because of all the bits the movie leaves out to cram it into a shorter running time. A good example of which was when I watched "The Pursuit of Happyness" it's a brilliant movie which made me want to read the book which inspired it. When I read the book I realised that the movie only covered a small part of the book and was able to enjoy getting the bigger picture from reading all the bits they left out. Now if I'd done it the other way around no doubt I would have been disappointed because of all the great stuff the movie left out.

Some times movies are better than books. Because we get an clear idea about the characters and how they going on. And in sometimes showing the story in the movie is highly difficult. In that only main points will be covered. So times we should prefer boooks.

For me, it really depends on what the adaptation has to be. For example, with Fight Club, the film earned the edge for me, and even the book's author, Chuck Palahniuk admitted that he preferred the film. However, in many cases, the films have been rather disappointed and have been completely the opposite of the images provided by the book

I personally prefer to read a book than watch a movie, in the books the subjects are described much better and in much details than in a movie, due to the fact than in a movie the filmmakers have very limited time, so many of the issues can't be well cover, for example, my favorite books of all times is Dracula by Brahm Stocker, but when Coppola did the movie I think in 1993, even when the movie was good, the description of the book and the terror atmosphere that the book create wasn't there with the movie.

I like the book compared to movie. I agree with you regarding the twilight movie. The movie is so disappointing. There are lots of scene in the book that are missing in the movie. I've also read harry potter, and I love the book more than the movie. as well as the Angels and demons.