Films vs Books
Ask a Question
Out of all the books that have been made into films what do you guys prefer the book or the film?
Im a big harry potter fan and dont get me wrong the films are good but i think the books are better.
I think that all books are better than films as the books explain in more detail
I think a book will always have the edge because time can be spent on building the story and characters, you can rarely read a book in the time it takes to watch a film. Some films really do the books justice but some leave me feeling a little underwhelmed.
I absolutely adored the Outlander set of books and now I look forward to each series as the story has plenty of time to unfold in (mostly) the way I read them. I think a lot of that is to do with the author's input.
Another book/series I loved was Pillars of the Earth, again a really good adaptation from book to film but again it was a series thereby not confined to a 2 hour watch. And again the author had input....even a small cameo performance!
My dad loves the Pillars of the Earth book too! He really enjoyed the series as he said it was able to go into more detail. My husband loves The Last Kingdom books, he has read all of them numerous times, he enjoys the series but gets annoyed as Uthred in the tv show is not the Uthred from the books and it really bugs him as the character isn't quite right.
He also loves the Sharpe books and thinks that Sean Bean is the perfect man for Sharpe!
I agree that books offer more detail, more character development and allow you to immerse yourself in that world for a bit, to imagine that you are watching the story unfold and you can picture it in your head.
My favourite book is Jane Eyre, I have seen most of the adaptations. My favourite 2 are the bbc adaptation, which is 4 hours long and the most recent film version, as they managed to get the detail and the emotion across.
MrsCraig your dad and I would get on great guns! Has he read the next two books in the Pillars of the Earth trilogy? They are all good and are based on the same town as the original with their decendants as the main characters. However, I didn't like the second book's series as it was poorly made and had no big names in it, I didn't even finish it. It was the initial series that made me a besotted fan of Matthew McFadyen.
I also loved Sean as Sharpe, when he was in his prime and he did particularly suit that part. My granddaughter bought me a book about Sharpe and the making of it as she knew how much I loved it.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Last Kingdom, but have not read the books. I have tried Bernard Cornwell but can't seem to get on with his style of writing.
I am currently re-reading a set of books by David Gilman called Masters of War as I have recently bought the 6th one and wanted to refresh my memory. As I read I can almost see it on screen as a series of films, I wish someone would adapt it for film. It is set in the time of Edward III and his attempt to regain the throne in France, starting with the battle of Crecy. Forgive me if I have mentioned it before.
Jane Eyre. I have loved every film version, along with Pride and Prejudice, especially the one with my hero Matthew McFadyen!
Lynibis my dad has read all the books in the trilogy and he wasn't a fan of the second books series either.
I agree that Sean was brilliant as Sharpe, he was made for the role. I've never read any Bernard Cromwell either, I keep meaning to give him a go but never have the time these days!
Oh I will need to mention the Masters of War books to my dad and husband as that is definitely their kind of book.
I love Pride and Prejudice! I had never seen anything with Matthew McFadyen until Pride and Prejudice and thought he was very handsome and the perfect Darcy!
I always enjoy the books more. I never feel films do them justice. I loved the Potter films too but as you say the books were far better mainly due to all the added detail as Lynibis has said.
My greatest disappointment was "The time travellers wife" film. I adored the book but the film was just terrible.
I would usually agree with you that the books are always better but I can't say that about a particular book. I probably made the mistake of watching Outlander first then picked up with the books at the end of the series. It put me off watching when the new series started as I found it lingered too long on certain story lines and it seemed the author padded it out unnecessarily. I watched the first two new episodes and felt that I wanted to fast forward. This is probably the exception to the rule because you get so much more from a book.
Yeah i love Harry Potter too and the books are incredible. The thing about books though is you can imagine things how you would like them so i suppose thats why its usually our preference. What they did with the HP films was amazing though, i didnt actually think they would be as good as there are.
Ive also read and prefered the books - Twilight, Maze Runner, The Hunger Games, 50 Shades, The divergent series.
A lot of people prefer Stanley Kubrick's film version of The Shining over Stephen King's book. I'm interested to see the latest film version of Frank Herbert's book Dune. The first part of the film is scheduled to be released towards the end of the year.
The books are usually better, mainly as a lot of the detailing and imagination is not realised on the big screen. However, I found one exception - I hated the lord of the rings books, so when they made them into films I finally understood what was going on! I blame my school teacher, as Tolkien is a heavy read for 8 year olds
Interesting I'm the opposite with HP. I've read the books but prefer the films. It's the only time that's the case I usually prefer books
People say that the books are better than the film. I am a visual learner so watching stuff makes it easier to understand.
Join for free to get genuine deals, money saving advice and help from our friendly community
Chief Bargain Hunter
