Books Vs Movies: There Is No Way 100% Of People Agree On Which Is Better

The books have much more depth than the movies, besides the ending in the book makes more sense and really closes the storylines.

There are some passages of the movies I didn't like, but they certainly changed the fan base forever.

Can I have the books with the film music though ...

This is a tough one; the book is a masterpiece of storytelling, and one of the greatest works of fiction ever written, while Peter Jackson's trilogy is one of the best book-to-film adaptations of all time. I think the main issue is that there was just so much in the books that making a word-for-word adaptation would have taken several years and resulted in six or seven films, rather than three.

Movies bored the sh!t out of me, but watched them all. Only managed to read first book and same boredom. But I was reading The Dark Tower series at the time, so that explains.

I was surprised to see my opinion was in the mayority, I expected people would be snobs and say the short story was better. Ironically for Stephen king this is a middle quality story within his body of work and yet the best adaptation of a SK story ever brought to the big screen.

Read the short story though, you’ll be surprised……

The original story isn’t one of his best. Frank Darabont worked miracles with that production, drawing out nuance and meaning that’s almost invisible in the prose.

A very hot take: I served in prison ministries. There wasn't a thing that struck me as being even the slightest bit realistic in this entire movie. The Breakfast Club was a more realistic prison movie. Hell, the detention scenes from You Can't Do That On Television were more realistic. It was quite possibly the dumbest non-comedy I have ever had the misfortune to see. (I never watched the John Travolta-L Ron Hubbard space movie.)

42 , The correct answer was not an option. I have casted my vote never the less, so long and thanks for all the fish.

What about the original radio series? The rest were all adaptions or extrapolations of that after all

Bottom line: the movie makes me smile, maybe chuckle. The book, well I wouldn't read it in public unless you are fine with people thinking you are mad when you suddenly break the silence with an audible laugh.

Had no idea there was a film. Sounds like a load of dingoes kidneys to me.

The thing about Hitchhiker’s is that every medium’s version is different. The book isn’t the original; the radio show is. Adams made changes for the books, the TV show, and the movie (yes, the 2005 movie starring Martin Freeman was not only made with Adams’ blessing, but with him on the screenwriting team). So there is no one “definitive” version, by Adams’ design. If you want a treat, find an opportunity to listen to Neil Gaiman talk about Hitchhiker’s. Long before he became a household name for his books, he wrote what is still the definitive guide to the franchise. (I have a first edition of it in paperback and am looking for a chance to ask him to sign it.)

Suzanne Collins did such a good job of portraying PTSD in the books.

The book is rather mediocre. I was surprised how good the movie was. The casting was top notch.

Never seen this.

The closing scene is still the most powerful moving and inspiring moments in film. For me, it's the entire movie and I've often wondered about Chief's story and the new beginning he give himself. Even typing this and remembering the music to that scene is an incredible feeling. I love that scene

Book 1 was good. Books 2 and 3 are terrible... The writer just didn't know what to do with the story, how to explain things, how to end things. Movies changed a good part of the stories and made it better.

Heyyy. We don't talk about Fight Club!

Am I the only one out here who absolutely HATED this movie. Never read the book because the movie was so unsettling.

German author, german movie. Watch it in german. MACH SCHNELL! JETZT!

Guy named Kramer made his pen name Remarque to sound sophisticated, other reasons, wrote an amazing story that is placed in the classics section of public libraries in the US, and on many high school classes reading lists

Definitely both for me, the book was excellent and the movie really brought it to life, tears everywhere during certain scenes!

I love both actually... I remember reading it before the movie came out and I thought the book did a really good job

The better adaptation was the 90s version with Claire Danes, Winona Ryder, Susan Sarandon, Gabriel Byrne et al. Amazing cast... But the book was better

The magic of the Internet yields seven movies, five of which had sound (just to tell you how far back this goes), with everyone from June Allyson or Katherine Hepburn to Wynona Ryder or Saoirse Ronan.

All the Dune... no matter what... even that old PC game... MORE DUNE

I'm trying to get through reading Dune in Spanish, but my goodness is it a cerebral and trippy work of science fiction. I know that I enjoy it, but I keep on putting it down for months and then coming back to it. With my ADHD, it is just a book that is very difficult for me to read through at one time.

I actually don't like Dune, which is nuts because I should love it, it's my kind of fiction!!

I consider Dune, the book, to be an overwritten, bloated work that could have easily been edited to half the length without losing anything of substance. It took me decades to get past the first 100 pages, and that I managed only with an unabridged audiobook. David Lynch’s movie is harder to watch than the book is to read; the only really good thing about it is Patrick Stewart.

Too many pages in the books? Bad news for ya, OP: It's all just the first book (well, with added foreshadowing). Ironically, I found the movies far too slow. And that's from someone who normally complains that modern space movies rush by so fast you cant enjoy the world-building. In a five-hour movie, did we REALLY need to see Dune's version of the battle-to-the-death-to-prove-you're-a-worthy-tribesman scene? I loved the book, loved the first movie (although MAN does it seem cringey in retrospect in some ways), and kinda liked the stroll through fond memories of the new movie(s), but it was too easy to to understand why my son was bored to tears.

Romeo and Julie isn't a book. It's a play/script

It's almost as if a play is supposed to be, well, played out. ;)

I don´t like romance or Shakespeare´s work. Sorry.

The Zeffirelli film was better.

If by Leo you mean Leonard Whiting....

it's a must read, hard to beat Fitzgerald, even with DiCaprio.

Love the book and I've seen the original film with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow a few times. The book and both films we all equally good, with both films staying true to the book.