Film or Novel?

[DarthBob]

Which is better? the book or the film adaptation?

Personally I prefer the books because they contain more content.

Whats you veiw?

[Fiberfar]

How did that one go?
10% of the book goes into the film, and 10% of the film goes into the game.

Books.

[fable]

I think it depends. In general, I'd give the palm to the novel, simply because most producers go for books that are blockbusters, and do shoddy jobs to cash in on the originals. But just occasionally, somebody finds a novel that can be anything from barely competent to excellent, and does a film that is every bit as good, or better.

But in general, a very fine novel not only has its own wealth of detail, color and rhythm to offer, but those qualities as developed by the imagination of the reader. The latter is missing when the book is converted to film, and you only have the image that's on screen. Not to mention the absence of all the other senses, so admirably conveyed in good writing.

[Fiberfar]

Not to mention that the reader can choose his own tempo. It's harder to do that with a film unless you keep on replaying the scenes.

[sinbad71]

certainly books because you can read them at your own pace, but depends on mood and time available.

[BlueSky]

Have to throw my vote to the novel.....as so well put by Fable's reply....

Besides my job depends on novels....

[dragon wench]

I tend to favour the novel myself.. but very occasionally I find a movie comes along that is possibly better than the book it is based on..
One such example for me is The English Patient.
The book is so incredibly atmospheric and evocative that it lends itself very well to the screen..

[Moonbiter]

An interesting thing is that the day of the "movie novel" seems to be well and truly over. Back in the day, the studio would hire "name" writers to write the adaption of the film as a novel. Most of them were utter garbage, as the writer had to flesh out a book from a movie script, but some writers, like Alan Dean Foster, has done pretty well turning movies into books.

As for myself, I cringe every time I hear about a book being turned into a movie, especially by Hollywood studios. Still, there are exceptions. For instance "The Shawshank Redemption" is a far better movie than it was a novel, and it's a pretty darn good novel! The problem is that a reader like me can't fathom what it was like to be inside an American prison in the 40s and 50s. Stephen King is a master at describing locations and setting, but even he couldn't manage to convey the message properly. The director Frank Darabont managed that, and then some.

Still, it's one of the few occasions when I prefer the movie over the source novel. An interesting fact is that the movie adaption of LoTR led to a phenomenal new interest in the books and the works of Tolkien in general. This led to the fanboy joke: "What? They made a book out of it????" since a staggering amount of people didn't have a clue about Tolkien's works until they saw the movies. Sign of our times, methinks....

[BlondGamer]

Good question but I think if it was more specific as to what title such as Harry Potter, Godfather, No Country For Old men etc it would be easier to answer. What's better the book or the movie? In my opinion I believe it depends on what specific film or novel. I mean the Godfather is considered by many as one of the greatest films of all time. I don't believe you can say that Mario Puzo's novel is considered one of the greatest novels of all time. Plus this might be a situation where the book is not better than the film. Tough call good post but tough call.