Comments on: Why People Prefer The Book to The Movie

By: utari

utari — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:27:36 +0000

read the book is better than watch the movie, why? coz i can explore my imajination about the story on the book..

By: mutiara

mutiara — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:01:23 +0000

I absolutely agree with #1 and #2.
A movie never beats a book! But it doesn’t mean that the movie from the book is always bad, they just have a different taste, and I prefer the book best.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:15:38 +0000

He did say “popular”

All decisions in Hollywood can be determined by one rule. Money.

By: Linda

Linda — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:30:08 +0000

Thre is an exception to reason #3. It’s called Twilight.

By: Josh

Josh — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:48:13 +0000

I agree with all the listed above reasons but what people don’t understand is that their fav books being made have had to cut parst out either to keep the movie from being 4 hours or because the part is just way to complicated. For ex in the first Harry Potter, in the first book he had to go through 3 trials to get the stone and in the movie they only did one, the chess pieces. Also in New Moon with the dream scene, it took up too much time from the movie so the director cut it from the movie

By: Gazza

Gazza — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:08:29 +0000

ha ha I just said pretty much what you said without realising…

By: Gazza

Gazza — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:04:20 +0000

I’ve come up with the perfect way to avoid no 1: I read the book AFTER I see the movie. Because it’s true that the book is much richer in details, atmosphere, etc than the movie, I can enjoy the movie whilst watching it, and then compare it endlessly to the book as I’m reading it.

Of course,if you’ve already read the book, don’t go and read it again just before you see the movie (Harry Potter fans do this all the time, which is why they get so ‘peeved’ when stuff is left out). I did the same thing with New Moon, and it worked perfectly… too perfect in fact, cos now I don’t want to read that book again…

(NB: the only reason I read those books was because my at-the-time-13-yr-old-sister was, and it was my sisterly duty to ensure that they were appropriate for her to read; they weren’t of course, but I was too late as she’d already finished Breaking Dawn by then- and hated it :))

By: Karen

Karen — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:51:48 +0000

Let’s put the fish on the dish here, my friends. I have a theory I call The Law of First Contact. I’ve observed that people seem to be hard-wired to have a preference for whichever “truth” they had exposure to first. If someone reads the book first, then the investment of time in creating their mental motion-picture “truth” will trump a second exposure to someone else’s motion-picture interpretation. By contrast, the preference for the movie versus the book happens if the movie is seen first because it’s “truth” was accepted first.

By: Beth

Beth — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:56:16 +0000

No flaming here. I agree. There were parts of the book that made me want to pound my head. I agree with the Tolkien needing an editor bit.

By: J-Dog

J-Dog — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:54:04 +0000

Disagree with #1. My personal example is the Godfather. Saw Godfather I and II. Decided to read the book because those movies were great. Thought the book was better than the films. Based on reason #2. Depth and detail of the characters and the world. Learining how Sonny made his bones, how Sonny made a name for himself in the last Mafia war, how Vito Corleone took on Al Capone. I love all that stuff. Even if is a couple sentences or paragraph.