OnlineBookClub.org

I liked the Clockwork Orange film better than the book.

I tend to prefer the book to the movie. Guardians of Ga'Hoole was the exception. Even though the movie was different from the book I loved it. Eragon was a different story however...

I usually prefer the book over the movie. When I find out that a book will be made into a movie, I always read the book first so that I later can compare them to each other. Some movies have been wonderfully made and are great adaptations of the books. For example, The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, Harry Potter, and Pride and Prejudice, are all movies that I really enjoyed because they were able to bring the books to life in a great way. Other movies that I have seen that are based on books, vary greatly from the original story. Because of different reasons like time or budget, movies will most often leave out parts that were originally present in the book. Of course this is understandable, you can't expect it to be an exact replica of the book. I feel, though, that some movies in which the story is changed, are very good when viewed by themselves, and not in comparison to the book.

I'm hoping to enjoy the film adapt of Akira.

I almost always love a book over its movie counterpart. The most recent book/movie combo that I've encountered is Divergent. I loved the movie but favor the book because the book is able to tell the full story.

RobertManchester wrote:

Age777 wrote:Can you list book/movie combos and which you liked more?
Why?
What parts made you like one more than the other?
Or did you like them both but for different reasons?

I think 9 out of 10 times I find the book is better I am not sure why maybe it's because I read the book first most the time and it's comes alive In my head in its own way then when they make it as a move it's just not the same

Im the same way. I actually visualize the book as im reading it another reason i dont like movie-based books is because so many important details get left out simply because the makers pf the movie have to shorten the playtime anyway they can.

I always feel that the books are better than the movies. Maybe it's because movies can only be made with a duration of 2-3 hours and sometimes not the entire volume of the book can be covered.

There are a couple of books that were made into movies that should not have been or were not good enough as the books. For example "The Host" the book in my opinion was great the movie not so much. I didn't like the actors or the actresses that portrayed the characters they had nothing in common. The movie could have been better.

I always prefer the book(s) more than I do the film(s). While the films offer true visual of the characters, the setting, and everything in the story line, it is never completely inaccurate. In fact, some book-turned-movies are horribly inaccurate. Some, not all. Personally, I always prefer the books because that is where the true accuracy is at.

I prefer the books to the films, because reading is active and you assimilate the story when you employ your imagination - it's by actively visualising/imagining what one reads that makes it part of one's mental landscape. Films are more passive, since you receive someone else interpretation of the work. That said, some films compare well to the books that inspired them and are visual confections (I'm an artist, so I enjoy seeing things). The films that I thought did the books justice are The Nun's Story and Hannibal Rising. Both were beautiful to look at and were accurate portrayals. In my opinion, these films are examples of masterful remediation.

I can name like 100 times where I thought the book was better than the movie. (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc. etc.) The one time where I thought the Movie (in this case TV show) was just as good if not better was with A Series of Unfortunate Events which is a Netflix Original Series. I would highly recommend it

The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit series are prime examples of books vs movies. However, I can't imagine what we could have known about the books without the films, especially nowadays in the digital age?!

Age777 wrote:Can you list book/movie combos and which you liked more?
Why?
What parts made you like one more than the other?
Or did you like them both but for different reasons?

I liked the Dan Brown movies more than the books but because of Tom Hanks I think.

I have a few examples in this category when I can't decide which one was better, in fact I appreciated both for different reasons. First of all: The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje, that I've red only last year after seeing the movie so many times that I know it by heart. To my surprise I loved the book just as much although I was afraid I might not. I would recommend both of them in any order. Then there is The Perfume by Patrick Süskind, very hard to imagine how you can suggest smell with mere words or images, so both are really impressive. There is then Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel García Márquez, both book and movie worth to read and see. The rest of the cases in which I've red the book and seen the movie, most of the times I preferred the book.

Only once have I experience loving the movie as much as the book; The fault in our stars - John Green. I mean obviously I like the book the most, but I just think that the movie was made so well. I remember the first time I read the book I cried SO hard when I finished it and I couldn't imagine doing the same watching the movie, but the movie really touched me and in the end I cried (again..) and I never cry during movies.