Books Better Than Movies

I think the movie is better than the book because it’s more visual, has more action, and has props.

Is it true the books are always better than the movies? This question has plagued the world since the first creation of motion pictures. Movies often add and take away different things from books. This sometimes angers people because the things that movies take away are more often than not key factors of the plot. This is the case in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Frankenstein The Movie made in 2004. The movie added certain things to make the creature seem more human. It made the audience feel more sympathetic to it. The things the movie added was added to push the movie along.

I didn’t pick the book over the movie because I think books are boring. When you are watching the movie you don’t have to use your brain that much. When I’m watching a movie about any type of genre that has a book that goes with it, I usually ask questions to myself (in my head) about

The book is better because it gives more excitement and emotion. The book just explains each of the events in great detail. I don’t know about other people, but for me the more information there is, the more I understand it. And in the movie of “The Outsiders”, it does not really say much about what’s going on. For instance, when Johnny dies, in the movie, Ponyboy goes home but it does not tell how long he had been out. In the book, Pony is walking home from the hospital and a man asked him if he wanted a ride (Hinton 151). Though others might think that the movie is better because it visualizes the events that are happening. But, even though it envisions what the book tells about does not mean that it is one hundred percent better.

The difference between the developing way of books and movies is magnificently huge because the way of emotion transmitting is different; the movie is based on vision, while the book is based on words.

Through many years of school, students have always been told by teachers the book is better than the movie. I have always believed this to be true on some level, but I have never actually done an in depth comparison of a book and its movie counterpart. I recently read the book The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Then I watched the movie. I came to the conclusion that the movie is better than the book.

The film is better because rather than a book, which most people would rather to read, they are more likely to watch a film that turns up on T.V. Most people don’t pick up a book after high school but a film is something that people frequently watch. In addition to the massive range of the film, it, unlike the book, is presented with audio cues and visual images that the book lacks. Individuals, who don’t have the time or patience to read a book that is only words, can watch an animated and indulging film that diffuses the same message as the book and perhaps, even more because of all the characters that come to play in the

“Books are better than movies because you design the set the way you want it to look.” This quote comes from Trent Reznor and some may agree and some may disagree. When reading a written version , the reader can visualize characters in their own way with context clues from the book. In movies, the viewer sees the characters the way the director wants to portray them.

In addition it got confusing on who was talking. Also, it showed more than the book did. The movie was easier to see who was talking. Therefore the movie showed more than the book by the different points of view that were shown. Those are the reasons why I think the movie is better than the

Messages can be conveyed to an audience in a number of different ways, whether it is a poem, a written story, or a movie. These different methods have the ability to convey similar messages but one method in particular will tend to be more successful than the others. A common example of this is the argument concerning the comparison of a book and a movie, which is better? Popular books that have been recently made into movies are Harry Potter, Twilight, and The Hunger Games and fans tend to have a strong opinion of which version they prefer. Specific people have their own reasons for choosing which they favor, but the trend seems to be that books are preferred to the respective movie due to the incorporation of detail and narration within

Books give you the opportunity to let your mind make up the pictures about the story, based on how you want. It allows your mind to think outside the box and use your imagination. In a movie or show, the television shows the picture for you, without having to think or question why it is that way. Books also give the reader more details and information about the story, while movies just show it the way they think it should be. Lots of people claim that when you read a book and watch a movie over the same topic, the movie is always better. In that case, you should open a book and dive into your own

Many think that the movie version of Book IX in The Odyssey is better than the book. After all, it’s much shorter, we can actually get a visual, and we can just sit back and relax while eating something. We even get a visual of our favorite character! It is true that we can finish the movie in two hours but reading the book would take a long time. However, the book is better than the movie in many ways. It describes things in rich detail, it has received better reviews for over 2000 years, and it is more exciting. In conclusion, and in my opinion, the book is better than the

Everyone is aware that books have a richer backstory and more intrigues than a film, and that is natural due to the length of the book compared to the film. But why does everyone always say that the book was better than the film, even though, the film is way more focused and fast paced? Is it really that big of a difference between the book and the film? I will use this compare and contrast essay to try and explain in which way the Oliver Twist book is both very similar and very different from the film adaptation of Oliver Twist. I will also try to explain why people generally think that the book is better than the film.

Literature can, at times, have a fascinating connection with film. Whether it is a film or a piece of literature, both are written by someone that wants to leave an impact on an audience. However, movies and books have different roles. They each have different strong points wherein books give better characterization, stronger revelations, and inner conflict, but movies create a better mood with music and visuals, showing much more emotion. It's a totally different kind of experience, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The movie version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, is essentially a visual, nonverbal experience. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a subjective experience, which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting. Utilizing its verbal medium, Clarke is able to explain his narrative, whereas Kubrick creates a visual and audial experience, through means of ambiguity, in which the viewer sees everything, is told nothing, and in which one cannot detect the presence of the film as one at all.

When a person reads a book they are entranced in the plot line. They have to comprehend and understand in order to finish the book and have it make sense. Movies can just be idly watched without gaining attention or intellect. Due to this, movies do not leave an impression.