OnlineBookClub.org

I hear a lot of differing opinions on whether an overarching story, say, one book a season with however many episodes it needs, or a one-shot finalized product of higher quality is better. One has the flexibility to be true to the story, while the other would be better at hitting those poignant or epic moments with the higher-quality sound and special effects. Thoughts?

As you said, there are advantages to each. Both also have their disadvantages. A movie, with its time constraints, might need to sacrifice certain complexities of characterization or intricacies of plot so as not to make an unwatchable monstrosity. A series does not need to concern with the same problem and can take as long as it needs. It has room to explore. However, it does have its own time constraint: the episode. An episode can only be so long and they must all be the same length. The span of time between airings can diminish the effect of a certain scene. A movie can sustain the momentum of a scene in a way that a series cannot. That said, I would have to say that it depends on the story being told. "Game of Thrones" certainly benefits from being a series. If it had been a movie, it would have had to sacrifice a lot of its complex characterizations and moralities for it to be able to fit, even if each book had been given its own movie. It does not suffer too much for the momentum lost between episodes because the novels themselves were written in a way that would build momentum up and then suddenly diffuse it.

I personally prefer tv adaptions only because more can be shown in a television series rather than a movie which contains a time limit. Movies tend to cut out important details and scenes from the books we loved and adored. An example would be the Confessions of a Shopaholic movie, it was so tragic and unbearable to watch. The director mashed three books together and cut out all the important details, as a reader I was so disappointed by the film because I was so excited my favourite series was finally going to be shown on the big screen. Tv adaptions are great but sometimes different details are added by the director and they don't always stick to the book and change many things around. Readers sometimes can get upset by that, however I feel the director's are doing an amazing job with Game of Thrones so I am content

I've always kind of struggled with my thoughts on any kind of adaptations of books to either movies or TV shows because, while many of them are extremely successful, at the same time, they'll never turn out exactly as any of us would want them to. And I think that's the beauty of a really good book - that even though all of its readers are reading the same exact words, we all perceive those words in completely different ways. This is why I will always think that the book was better than the movie or TV show, because I love that books transport me to another world, another reality made by the author and how I picture the story playing out.

TV adaptions seem to be long, repetitive and tedious in my opinion. (pretty little liars, trueblood, vampire diaries). I have yet to find one done well.

I have just finished watching (again) Band Of Brothers, the 2001 miniseries made for TV. This series is (or was) ranked as the highest rated of ANYTHING (TV or movies) at International Movie Database. Normally I would not think that a TV miniseries could possibly compete with a movie but this production soars beyond anything I have experienced in the last fifteen years of cinema.

I prefer tv adoptations

TV adaptions seem to be long, repetitive and tedious in my opinion

For me, it really depends on the book. A really good series needs a tv adaptation. A good example for that is the Outlander series. Books that are not a part of a series generally do not have enough material for more than a feature length movie.

I'm all in for movie adaptations. Tv adaptations drag off for, in my opinion, too long, and the show often becomes lazy (one example is Under The Dome). I believe books to movies should be one book = one movie.

TV shows are drawn out and after a while they try experimenting by adding things in to see what reviews they get out of fans, with movies some might think 'oh it's one and done they can't add much or do much of anything because of time limits and such' but they can always make more movies like if it were a book series. Personally I think movies are better but there are a few TV shows that I like to watch, if they don't change them too drastically.

I think they both have their flaws. Movies might not be able to follow the book that closely because of time. And these days I'm finding that TV shows that start out good never really end up following the books. The longer the TV show lasts the more they try to play to the audience's tastes and don't stay true to the characters or the plot in the books. They both also have restrictions on what they can do because of their budget.

I really think it depends on the book. Something like Game of Thrones works so well as a show because there is way too much detail/story to put into a typical movie length. I enjoy tv shows because I feel I can become more invested in the characters. Movies are sometimes too short to establish characters and emotions in a way that books do. However, I do find movies work for some books, if they are shorter books with only one main story line, a movie is usually sufficient enough time.

I think it depends if it is one book, or a series. If it is a decently long series I would rather see it as a TV show because they have more time for character development, etc. However if it is just one book, or just a couple, then I would like the movie better so they don't have time to butcher the story line...

I think it depends on the book, and the complexity of the story. Games of Thrones, for example, needed many episodes for the intensity and story to develop. Whereas, most books can be made into a movie without losing too much of the magic