Book or Movie?

[Rackinac]

Pretty staight forward question.

For me it's almost always the book. The book Eragon was cool, but the movie ruined it. Nay, destroyed it.

Jurassic Park. The book much better than the already-awesome movie version. Much more in depth and has a better ending; John Hammond is eaten by dinosaurs rather than escaping with the kids.

Jumper was an awesome movie, but the book was terrific. Like, amazing.

Now I just watched the crap that is The Amityville Horror today. No. At first, I thought the book sucked. But after watching the movie, wow did I ever change my mind. They took out all the good stuff to replace it with not-scary crap.

1. There is no babysitter. That point of the movie was pointless and not scary, and wasn't even in the book. Whatever.

2. Only the father went crazy. In the book, he did go crazy first, but then the wife and children too. The parents became abusive and the children became rebels.

3. There was no epic 'window flattening Danny's fingers without breaking his bones' thing. I thought that was awesome in the book, but they had to take it out. He also didn't get his 'kick the demon's ass to save his sister scene', which would of been awesome.

4. It has a happy ending. Screw that, in the book they are forever haunted by demons. And the movies it's like 'yey we live lets pretend this never happend EVER!!!'

[red.yoshi]

BOOOOOK!!!

With the book, you paint your own pictures, and you actually exercise your brain. Books make everything so much more interesting.

Movies you just sit there and fry your brain. Not to say they're bad or anything (there are some very excellent movies, Eragon excluded.)

[teh yoshi]

I usually like movies because there's no reading. :V
I'm on fire.

[Rackinac]

Apr 7, 2008 18:06:03 GMT -5 teh yoshi said:

I usually like movies because there's no reading. :V
I'm on fire.

So badass. :V

But the movie Jaws was actually better than the book. The book was just boring and involved more romance, cheating, and crap like that than 'OHSHI- GIANT SHARK!' which is basically the plot of the movie.

Chyeah.

[Lord of the Dance]

Books of course! Because I'm a dork like that.

[Marik]

I've always prefered the books. I have reasons why too. Let me explain them.

The books usually, are by the original source, so nothing is going to be altered,deleted,added,changed, and whatnot. And the books, (without the movie being made afterwords) tend to get you immersed into the story more effectively. Usually It's becauase of a sinmple reason. You can Picture the story in your head, furthering your understanding of the story even more. Movies... don't do that, sure you can see all the action happenning, but it's not the same as picturing it in your head. You understand it better if it's through your eyes and your sense of understanding.

Books=WIN
Movies=PHAIL

[Toshi]

The book is always the better version than the movie no matter what it is. They cram about a week's worth of reading into a 2hr movie, and they cut out loads of "unimportant" parts no matter what.

Take Lord of the Rings. As much as the movies were great, they cut out a lot of stuff. Did you know Aragorn was actually 87 because he was a different kind of human? I never read the books myself, but to me, that was an important piece of information that they cut out on release, but if you watched the extended version, they did leave it in anyway.

Of course having said such, I no longer have the patience to sit and read a book, unless I know for sure I'll be finished with it in, say, an hour. I just lose interest so easily in them. So to get a gist of the story at least, I would prefer to watch the movie, but even then I don't have the patience to sit through a movie. I'm weird.

So if I wanted to catch every detail of the story, I'd vote book. Though if I prefer to just get a basic overview of the story, I'd vote movie.