Book and movie, why is the book always better?
 

Simple, YOU help "write" it, or at least "fill out the blanks". No matter how well an author describes the characters and surroundings of a book, their image will always be assembled by you, in your mind. Whereas in movies, well, you already get the picture. :winkwink:

Then again you also have a more recent trend, where they publish books written after blockbuster movies. And, of course, you find the sorry fucks like me, who'd take a movie over a book any time of day, since that'd save time. So nice that we're all different. :)

Also no time constriction or "dumbing down" with books!

Yep, but a book will cost you the same twelve bucks, and an additional day or two. :)

why do you open a thread asking something and you answer it yourself ?








do you want to prove your huge intelligence to gfy ?

Do you want to prove your lack of it?

I always try not to compare too much!

because a movie neglects or leaves our background info that is allways included in the book

look at "Da vinci code" the book was great.. prolly the movie will be that also
but in the book a lot is played in the mind or flashbacks and thoughts.
hard time putting that on the silver screen

I hate books.

I'd rather get to the point, and get told the story in a 2 hour movie, rather than the time it takes for a book.

"i can't wait" Brad said with much excitement in his voice.... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:thumbsup Just get it the fuck overwith! :1orglaugh

just answer my question

Charlie Kaufman has helped me understand the (still grander) power of cinema, now that the formative conventions of theatre have begun to lose their effect.

The medium *film* is NOT like life.


Comparing books and movies is going to get even more absurd.

Previously, popular films begat novelizations.

Hereforward, keep yer eyes open for the effects of film upon the written word.

The concept "narrative" is in debate and up for grabs -- :)







2hp

A film that panders to instant gratification without giving you anything in terms of story, character, setting sucks in my mind. Usually I prefer a book, and I don't consider the time taken to read a "cost"...

Just my humble opinion.

answer my question damagex

Say "please", dumbass.

wow

what an impressive demonstration of your extremly high intelligence.:1orglaugh

The great one was where Steven Speilberg had War of The Worlds rewritten. How can someone rewrite a story by HG Wells?

Dude, do I know you? I'm pretty sure you have better things to do than to start a pissing match with me, but just in case you don't, are you sure this is in your best long-term interest? 'Cause I for one sure do have better things to do than to answer dumb questions and get into pissing matches with you. Use that voice of reason in the back of your head and let it be.

i never wanted to start a pissing match man!

i was just curious about the thing i asked in the first post.


i'm no keyboard warrior.

Didn't you just sorta do the same thing? :winkwink:

The answer is simple. A movie is 2 hours maybe 3. That's not enough time to delve to deeply in characters or plot. You could make movie with as much depth as a book, but who is going to sit thru a 10 hour movie? Roots was a TV mini series for a reason.

I have never read for pleasure and have never seen one of the educational books a read as a movie

so I never felt the disspointment :)

follow my lead ;)

think the problem is most good books are made into films, that are rushed for release and sometimes simply overdone by Hollywood, because its one mans interpretation of events instead of your own.

however, there are many exceptions, can u honestly tell me that Jurassic Park, the first time you saw it was worse as a film then the book. HELL NO. And bond movies for the fans, are better than books.

What would rules be without exceptions? :winkwink:

i cant judge i never read books.

yup, you have a point

rofl - best response ever. I only read business books myself and magazines. DVDs are the way to go for entermainment in my book.