What do you like more

[The Terminator]

What do you like better a good book or a good movie?

Books include ebooks and real books

[ATDrake]

A good book that also has a good movie based on it. It's like doubled entertainment value!

A good book that has a bad movie based upon it is also entertaining, but in a different and often more cringe-worthy facepalming way. Especially if something I really liked and recommended is now going to be dismissed by the masses who've only encountered the film of the book.

[tubemonkey]

A movie. I consider them "video books".

[The Terminator]

But the movie of a book would have to be a lot longer.

[daffy4u]

They each have their place in my world.

[rcuadro]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

They each have their place in my world.

THat they do! But there are very few moves that I have liked that I saw after reading the book. Off the top of my head they are The Count of Monte Cristo, Shawshank Redemption, and that is all I can remember right now

[Fastolfe]

Originally Posted by THE TERMINATOR

I like the books better because when do you get a great movie thats over ten hours long

Exactly right, but actually books are better than that: they're not just "really long movies", they're blueprints for your mind to create its own, personalized movies, with an unparalleled economy of information.

For example, this opening paragraph from 2001, A Space Odyssey:

The drought had lasted now for ten million years, and the reign of the terrible lizards had long since ended. Here on the Equator, in the continent which would one day be known as Africa, the battle for existence had reached a new climax of ferocity, and the victor was not yet in sight. In this barren and dessicated land only the small or the swift or the fierce could flourish, or even hope to survive.

This short paragraph essentially sums up the entire opening sequence of the 2001, A Space Odyssey movie before the monkeys start fighting. In only 406 characters, it sets the stage for the prehistoric bit of the story.

But best of all, your mind automatically makes up the missing details: the dry savanna, the heat, the stale air, the stench of decaying meat, the proto-human creatures watching one another, ready to fight and kill over anything to eat, the ominous silence... Thanks to your own imagination, those mere 406 characters are enough to open a huge window to our distant past and let in a whoosh of prehistoric air, all that in 10 seconds and in the comfort of your own living room.

And the scene you're contemplating is yours. We all imagine something else with words, nobody can imagine the same things you do. As a result, the movie you get out of a book is your very own, the best it can be, because you're the director.

The problem for me is when I read a book, then watch a movie based on it: as much as I loved the 2001 movie, and as much as I loved Kubrik's interpretation of the 2001 book, his vision of the book destroyed mine. I almost thought "oh, so that's what it looks like" and was almost disappointed at the realism of it all, because my own imagined movie was so much more dazzling and lively. I had the same disappointment with The Fountainhead, Blade Runner, The Bicentennial Man, Dune, Brazil and countless other movies that I loved, but somehow trivialized and "flattened" my memory of the books they're based on.

I also have the same problem when reading a book after seeing the movie: my memories of the movie would involuntarily corral and entrap my imagination, making the book less enjoyable as a result.

That's the reason why I tend to avoid watching a movie based on a book I read, and if I did watch the movie, I'll wait as long as possible to read the corresponding book. It's a bit of dilemma of course with great movies based on great books

[usuallee]

I like both equally. The cliche is that the book is always better, but I don't find that to be true at all, even though I am a very avid reader. In fact sometimes the movie is far,far better than the book (Wonder Boys, Lord of the Rings, L.A. Confidential, off the top of my head). Sometimes a fantastic book can become a movie that is just as terrific (Girl with the Dragon tattoo). Then of course there are indeed many examples of a great book made into a subpar movie. Fiction and film are two very different art forms, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, I enjoy both.

Also a book/movie like Shutter Island, with such a wicked twist, you are going to enjoy whichever one you experienced first, almost by definition. I read the book first and it blew me away. The movie was real good too but it lacked the shock value I might have had if I had not read the book.

[mldavis2]

I agree with @fastolfe. A book, while asking you for much more of your time, nevertheless forces you to create your own vision of the story, not rely on someone else's mind or the limitations of Hollywood artistry or the cartoonist's pen. While it may be interesting to see another interpretation, such does not ask much of the viewer.

[Sydney's Mom]

I prefer a good book. I don't believe I have ever seen a movie based on a book that was better than the book. On the other end of the scales is A Beautiful Mind and The Lovely Bones. I loved both those books, and abhored the movies.

But the popcorn is better at the movies.

[GraceKrispy]

Originally Posted by THE TERMINATOR

What do you like better a good book or a good movie?

Books include ebooks and real books

Hey, wait! Ebooks *are* real books! Just in digital format

I voted book, but it really depends on my mood. If I'm not in the mood to think, a movie is better. Really, though, I prefer books, in general.

[The Terminator]

Originally Posted by Fastolfe

Exactly right, but actually books are better than that: they're not just "really long movies", they're blueprints for your mind to create its own, personalized movies, with an unparalleled economy of information.

For example, this opening paragraph from 2001, A Space Odyssey:



This short paragraph essentially sums up the entire opening sequence of the 2001, A Space Odyssey movie before the monkeys start fighting. In only 406 characters, it sets the stage for the prehistoric bit of the story.

But best of all, your mind automatically makes up the missing details: the dry savanna, the heat, the stale air, the stench of decaying meat, the proto-human creatures watching one another, ready to fight and kill over anything to eat, the ominous silence... Thanks to your own imagination, those mere 406 characters are enough to open a huge window to our distant past and let in a whoosh of prehistoric air, all that in 10 seconds and in the comfort of your own living room.

And the scene you're contemplating is yours. We all imagine something else with words, nobody can imagine the same things you do. As a result, the movie you get out of a book is your very own, the best it can be, because you're the director.

The problem for me is when I read a book, then watch a movie based on it: as much as I loved the 2001 movie, and as much as I loved Kubrik's interpretation of the 2001 book, his vision of the book destroyed mine. I almost thought "oh, so that's what it looks like" and was almost disappointed at the realism of it all, because my own imagined movie was so much more dazzling and lively. I had the same disappointment with The Fountainhead, Blade Runner, The Bicentennial Man, Dune, Brazil and countless other movies that I loved, but somehow trivialized and "flattened" my memory of the books they're based on.

I also have the same problem when reading a book after seeing the movie: my memories of the movie would involuntarily corral and entrap my imagination, making the book less enjoyable as a result.

That's the reason why I tend to avoid watching a movie based on a book I read, and if I did watch the movie, I'll wait as long as possible to read the corresponding book. It's a bit of dilemma of course with great movies based on great books

I totaly agree i like to make up what the characters look like

[SlowRain]

I'm thinking this poll will be more than just a little biased given the very nature of this website.

[viviena]

I don't watch many movies at all, so that option's out. Given the choice between a good PC/video game and good book to pass away the time however, and I would actually go for a good game. (Please don't hurt me.) By this, I mean games with considerable length or replay value, where the imagination is infinite. RPGs, epics, action/adventure, etc.

However, an excellent book, one which haunts my waking hours and which causes me to bump into doors, one in which I suddenly develop an all-consuming interest for its genre or subject matter, I would prefer to an excellent game. I appreciate the levels of introspection and self-reflection that an excellent book can induce, as well as the subtlety and well-composed craft of an excellent book. There are many excellent games out there, but they usually result for me in more visceral feelings of thoughfulness and enjoyment -- very emotionally involving in many cases, but also more fleeting in their impact.

[shanghaichica]

A good book always.