Are the books better or are the films better?

[Samanthawatlington89]

I've always thought that the books was way better then the movies. Books always have way more detail and you can read for hours. With the movie you watch it, get disappointed cause they leave stuff out and then the movie is over.

[love_b00ks]

For me, the Hunger Games book was better than the movie; and most books are better than their adaptations

[chipmunck]

For the most part I enjoy the book more than the movie. For example the movie "Me before You" was so much worse than the book. I read it first though. It took out important story lines and even took out a character which really disappointed me. I do enjoy the movies though when I watch it before reading it. It is like the book gives me so much more reading it after watching.

[Patrick Dumnoi]

Movies are unique in their own way, books as well. I don’t think it’s necessary to figure out which is the better medium as they both fulfill different needs people have in terms of storytelling.
I read a novel for the length, the immersion, the prose, the beauty of the language, the whole world that this language invokes in my mind, the character which faces I also have to imagine, etc, etc…. All of this mixed together gives a peculiar, completely different adventure from that of watching a movie. It does demand more concentration and imagination.
But, that doesn’t mean movies are any less intelligent or entertaining. Filmmaking is hard work. Trying to slip a powerful story within a couple of hundred pages is incredibly difficult in its own right, and so is the craft of directing a movie or just creating its sound effect or else. With a book, we just see the writing and think of the author sat behind their desk, penning words. With movies, I imagine a whole team behind the camera making something for our entertainment that they are sweating and having insomnia over. All this makes me respect movies just as much as I respect the ordeal of the writer and their publishing team : what matters is that someone is creating a story for you and putting all of their souls into it. I watch a movie when I want the immediacy of the image, when I want someone to hand me a well-packed story with clear faces, a soundtrack, established settings… the immediacy is everything. That’s what we love about movies, and also the fact that they rarely go over two hours and thus manage to bring us a different kind of storytelling experience : something short and concise, which gives this medium its own power.
It’s always interesting to pinpoint the differences and similarities between the two, but it’s impossible to say if books are objectively better than movies. At least to me. They are two different ways to escape and I have an equal and enormous love for both.

[Aubrey Lewis]

When it comes to time-saving, for me, films are better because they only end in a short period of time (lasts at least an hour up to 3hours – depending on the movie). Whereas, books… I have to read one for at least a whole day or even for a whole month depending on how engaging or boring the book is.

[Faithmwangi]

I pick book over movie.They have this sense of personalisation i really cant explain.

[Rebecca AR]

I think it's definitely more common to prefer the book to its movie adaptation - you're more absorbed by a book, generally. You're inside the characters' heads, and get to know them on a much deeper level.

But there's definitely examples of the reverse. One that jumps to mind is Arrival (film) vs Story of Your Life (short story). Another interesting one is the recent adaptation of Annihilation.

[Shraddha_rc]

I would prefer spending my time reading books rather than watching films because I find books more interesting in comparison to movies.

[Princess Donatello]

Am not really a fan of books. But I believe watching it makes more sense than reading, cause when u watch u tend to captivate everything than reading and imaginating.

[scratchcat318]

I definitely think that the books are better than the movies. Books are able to fit in more detail, character, and worldbuilding than movies can, simply because movies only have 1.5 - 2 hours to squash everything in and make it cohesive. You can fit more details into books because, if a book is structured well, it can be very long without boring the reader. Movies can't really reach too far beyond 2 hours, or they run the risk of boring their audience, so they have to remove a lot of details that the books have.

[Wesley Liu]

This topic really depends on what the book is, and how the writing or film is executed. Some books might not be very well written, but a film interpretation of the book could add many of their own details to please viewers. Usually, if the book is well written, the book would be a better representation of the story since it gives a fuller view of every single detail of what goes on in the story. Since movies are usually constrained to a certain time limit (usually 1.5 to 2.5 hours), the movie might not be able to display every important part of the story without disrupting the visual flow, so the film could lack many of the details that help give the story a fuller understanding. A book, on the other hand, has an almost unlimited amount of pages (be realistic) that can be used to fit necessary details that would make the story easier to understand and much more enjoyable than a movie.

Another aspect to take into consideration is the difficulty of understanding a certain story. In a book, trying to project a complex story to a reader can be very difficult, while just using visual representations would be a much more efficient and comprehensive way of displaying the story. For example, this is the reason why sometimes people would draw out visual representations in math, so that the person can visualize each step and understand it, instead of reading the steps and trying to contain all the thoughts and still create an image.

[Kelvinsmith]

I prefer movies I like visual

[RSchwartz]

The first thing that comes to mind for this question is the book Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. The ONLY similarity between the book and the first movie (I can't believe they made more of them) was that there were bugs and there was a war. Names may have carried over but nothing else about them followed. This of course is strictly my opinion YMMV

[HalyZee]

The books are better. I find movies made from books lacking i.e if you haven't read the book most of the times you're left hanging because while making the movies they edit their scripts too much. For example twilight series, 50 shades etc. This makes me less willing to sit and watch my favourite book that's been made into a film

[Lolababs94]

I'm ashamed to say I haven't read the Hunger Games books though I watched the movie. However, for books that I have read that were adapted to movies, I have always found the books to be better. Although, for most the movie adaptations are good, just not as good as the book.

Pride and Prejudice (though the BBC adaptation was almost as good)
The Harry Potter series (another good adaptation but the book is better)
The DUFF (the book is definitely better)
The Sword of Truth (The movie was Legend of the Seeker)
The Chronicles of Narnia