Often you read a book and you see its being turned into a movie! Sadly you go to see the movie and its nothing like the book. But sometimes you will see the movie and you think, Wow! it was better than the book. Please discuss what you think is better movies or books.
I always prefer the books because they are the original creations.
Books are better then their movie counterparts... Eragon movie is a prime example of this.
The Lightning Thief was an awful movie. It was nothing I mean nothing like the book.
Hell, the only good Book to movie adaption I can think of is HP.
(May. 02, 2011 1:28 AM)scipio132 Wrote: [ -> ]The Lightning Thief was an awful movie. It was nothing I mean nothing like the book.
Thats completely true by a long shot, And books are way better.
40% Movies 60% Books
And thats right "Hell, the only good Book to movie adaption I can think of is HP."
Hell, even Chick Fliks are affected, R.I.P Something Borrowed.
I like to see a book in a movie because when they describe something, I can get a good idea at how it looks like. Plus, I just prefer seeing something move than letters on paper. Don't get me wrong, I like to read but when faced with a choice to see the movie of a book or read the book itself, most likely im going with the movies.
Then you'll like Eragon the movie. Teh movie that has chicks for serious chars.
Books. They have far more detail and you can relate to the character more directly.
(May. 02, 2011 1:43 AM)Akel Wrote: [ -> ]I like to see a book in a movie because when they describe something, I can get a good idea at how it looks like. Plus, I just prefer seeing something move than letters on paper. Don't get me wrong, I like to read but when faced with a choice to see the movie of a book or read the book itself, most likely im going with the movies.
I would rather create my own visualization of a character
As a student of film, I think you'll know which one I'd choose. Books translated well to film depend solely on those involved in the production. You're always going to see fat trimmed, despite how important you may value that fat.
i dont knoqw books have extra stuff the movies left out (percy jackson and the olypians the lightning theif perfect example no aries luke lost hades is evil WTCarp)
movies seem to have more action not thatbooks dont have actio but have different actions and since the movie you can see is easier to understand and stuff
(May. 02, 2011 3:09 AM)To Wrote: [ -> ]As a student of film, I think you'll know which one I'd choose. Books translated well to film depend solely on those involved in the production. You're always going to see fat trimmed, despite how important you may value that fat.
Its not just fat trimed it's changes that don't need to be changed. A prime example is in Eragon when Brom got killed by a different person for no apperant reason. And the Lightning Theif where their fat asses were to lazy to make a sequel sothey wraped it up in one awful copletly different from the book movie.
Sequels in the film industry are never a guaranteed thing, so making a film that can standalone isn't bad.
If you read the book first, then the book is always better than the movie.
I totally agree with Kai-V there. I read one HP book for 2-3 hours...(I've actually read 4 already but of course not in one day..<---Off-topic) Then when I saw the movies...It was good but I like the books more because they describe more and put more background to the characters. But so far yeah.....LDrago Destroy is right...HP is the only book-movie adaption that is good.
i like books than movies.books are original copy of the movie itself.BUT some books tells us some twist in some stories.(ex. is goldilocks,she is a young girl who has gold locks.BUT in the original book of it she is an old hag,with white hair)
I have to LOL at the comment that HP is the only good book to film translation. I see a good reversioning as being accessible to those who would never read the books, but not alien to those who did. It would combine the best of the book, with what makes an entertaining movie.
Personally I think the Harry Potter movies are pretty poor in that regard. They're meant for people who've read the books, and as someone who hasn't it feels very daunting to watch those movies and try to understand the world they're set in.
I like books more..they actually explain everything to us in detail...e.g....they are able to tell the emotions and feelings of the characters clearly but a movie...due to some flaws in the actors fails to show it clearly sometimes
(May. 02, 2011 4:04 AM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]If you read the book first, then the book is always better than the movie.
I disagree. I purchased the I am #4 novel the day after I saw the movie and so far it is better than the movie.
(May. 02, 2011 4:03 AM)To Wrote: [ -> ]Sequels in the film industry are never a guaranteed thing, so making a film that can standalone isn't bad.
But don't take out the entire plot of the next books. Lightning Theif had nothing about Kronos, no scorpion, no Clarisse, and Luke died. WTF?!!
I read the book
ercy Jackson and the Lightning Thief and then I saw the cover for the movie and I was like''
What that's not how I imagined the chracters to be like!!!
Always books for me. I prefer the feel of them.
the books always better than the movies..obviusly...major example..harry pooter...among the latest movies,very bad man..especially order and phoenix and half blood prince..
the restare ok..
that is one example...
(May. 15, 2011 8:21 AM)benjohadi Wrote: [ -> ]the books always better than the movies..obviusly...major example..harry pooter...among the latest movies,very bad man..especially order and phoenix and half blood prince..
the restare ok..
that is one example...
Harry Pooter?