Which is better- the book or the movie version of the book?

Why or why not? There's plenty of meat out there to dicuss.

I prefered the books of the lotr as it had a lot more in it obz.
However the films were good considering the restraints.

I also thought the hitchhikers film was poor compared to the books.

I'm not much of a reader...not like what I used to be. So if I see the movie first, I'll say the movie is better. Same goes with books.

For me, the book is always better. With a book, there is a lot more development of the story, and a much better pace most times.

A lot of times, much is lost in translation from paper to screen.

I can't think of any movies that were better than the book.

Cider House Rules was a better on film I thought.

Books are better. I enjoy picturing things in my own mind.
Also I've never understood why Stephen King's works don't translate better on the big screen. Poor scripts or acting?

Case in point--"Salem's Lot", which in my opinion is his masterwork, a genuinely frightening tale and a masterpiece of modern literature. Yet the movies made of this story have been horrendous.
Why? I should think this would make a great movie, but apparently someone is really goofing up somewhere.

Books. You get more details and you get to picture everything in your head. Though I'm itching to see how the Da Vinci Code movie will turn out. Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon.

One example of a movie that IMO is better than the book (while it's difficult to compare since it's not really a book) : Batman I & II.

i'm not far from thinking the same about War of the Worlds - I read Well's novel when I was a teenager and I remember finding it somehow boring. Spielberg's movie was brilliant.

American Splendor is another brilliant comic strip adaptation.
Hellboy was quite good too, characters and plot got much morre depth than in the original comic strip.

In a very different genre, Lolita by Kubrick is a great movie - I did not read the novel though I can't compare.




One can alos note that "novelisation" of successful movies usually suck.

So in fact it's not that one media (or form of art) is superior to the other, it's rather the fact that usually only good books are adapted and it's hard to turn them into better movies ; and usually only successful movies are novelised and their storyline is seldom deep enough to make a good book.

Books are almost always better than the films they make from them, just as old time radio stories were usually better than old time films.

The imagination can conjure up images that a screenwriter can only dream of.


As for Steven King not translating well to film, how about the movie, It? That was very well done.