Movies vs. Books

[Cy Skywalker]

Debate away. I'll say more when I have time.
Time
Time flies.

[SilverSergyon13]

I think most books....

Are better than the movies.

For example: Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban

The movie was horrible! All the characters were wrong wrong WRONG!! I had such cool characters made up in my head and then when they made the movie, I was very disappointed. Lupin was horribly depicted! I thought he was going to be blonde haired and much cooler. I thought Sirius was going to look almost like an Aragorn type character...definitely much cooler. And the werewolf was bad too. I for sure thought the werewolf was going to be Van Helsing style. Now THOSE were cool werewolves!

I definitely don't like when I read a book and have these visions of awesome characters, but then when I see a movie their depictions ruin everything!

Now, LOTR was very good, however, I have not finished reading the entire series.

Hitch Hikers Guide the movie was very good. I really enjoyed that movie, probably just as much as the book.

[Dûncariel]

You can't really compare books and movies. When a movie is made off of a book, then you must treat it as if it's a whole new story, almost. Sure, they have the same name and all, but there isn't a whole lot to compare. Lupin... *bangs head on wall* I'm still mad that they chose that actor to play him! Lupin was the only reason I kept reading Harry Potter after the third one.

Books, for some people, will always be better than movies, because they invovle your own imagination. Characters are good examples. In Harry Potter, the characters are written well enough that it's easy to build a description of them in your head. That way, whether they're a beautiful character, or a nasty one, you connect with them more, because you're seeing them how they're written. You get a lot of personality, that way.

In a movie, everything's layed out for you. You don't really have to think, because it's all already there, no questions asked. There's not much room left to the imagination -- each character is layed out.

Sometimes, however, you can't surpass movies for character development. Take Secret Window, for example. Jonny Depp kicked some serious butt as far as taking the character as far as he could, then switching it around.

[Cy Skywalker]

I was more thinking along the lines of the two medias, not necessarily translations, though that can be a subject in itself. Like, what are the pros and cons? Movies you can see exactly what's going on, hear the noises and see the people's minute movements, which books can't give unless the writer has real skill and then, not entirely. It also depends on how the reader sees things. Epic comes across more powerfully in movies. Books can't incorporate music. Movies can't have the true artsiness, the dignity, of the written word, nor can they let each reader picture what he/she sees, thus teaching us about ourselves.

[MFB]

What do I prefer...oh, boy, toughy.

You can't truly compare the medias. Books are good for intilectual reasons, better descriptions, and imaginitive properties, but movies come with images, music, and characters you can use in avatars.

I'd say that overall, I prefer Video Games. (HAHA, MFB. Shut up, Me. )

Star Wars, better for a movie. LotR...depends. Both are really goop. Harry, better for a book.

It all depends on what you like too.

[iliveforthis99]

I don't really care as long as they're good.

[Cy Skywalker]

mfbaggins said:

but movies come characters you can use in avatars.

That's a very good point. As long as their good...nice point too. Also, sometimes movies are better explored in books...in multiple medias. In SW's case, novels, comic books, LEGOs, etc.