Books are better than their movies because with books, YOU are the one who imagines how the character looks. YOU are the one who decides how that building looks, or where it takes place, or how he dies. YOU get your imagination at work, While in the film, the director chooses all these things, and what imagination is needed just to look at a screen??
I've always enjoyed books more than their movies. You can use your own imagination while reading and be in your own world. Being able to read the words of many amazing authors is fantastic. There are also parts in the books that you will never find in the movie. BOOKS!!!
When you read a book you listen to the author voice , but will ' l always have the freedom to imagine that world . Books are better than their movies because you have the descriptions and just like that a whole world opens inside your brain. Is better because gives you something to think about and challenge your brain .
Me experience, always better than the movie version. In a movie, you have a very limited amount of time to describe a lot. In a book, the author can tell you the character's thoughts and feelings, how they react to a particular situation and their motives for acting in a said way. All of this is very hard to convey through film.
Before I start my actual argument, I just want to say that there's not a sometimes button so that's why I'm on board with yes. I have read a few books that really stink that have really great movies, but in most cases, the books are easier to understand. Note that this does not apply if your reading level is a low complexity rate. If you have troubles understanding books that are made in to movies, but completely understand the movie, it's usually because the movie is made to be understood by all audiences, not just a select few with a specific comprehension level. Anyways, back to my argument. I believe that in most cases the books are better. I think this because my comprehension rate is quite a bit higher than most people my age. It may apply differently for those who aren't at a higher comprehension rate or just plainly don't like reading, but this is my opinion.
First off, I don't necessarily mean physical books (I'm including Kindle / Nook / other e-reader,) but books let you imagine, and movies, well, don't. While movies are a fun thing to see and even more fun to perform in, books are important to developing your imagination and creativity well.
To some extent, books are better than movies. In school when kids have a book report, they tend to watch movies, but a lot of the times books are not the same as movies. Books have a lot more information and go into depth with the plot of the story.
In a book you can imagine everything, open a world of wonder, open a life you have never ever had or could have. A movie , you just sit and watch- and can be more inappropriate than you can imagine. Please dive into a wonderful, beautiful,exciting, book, my friend. It will be a land of adventure.
Look at any movie that was made from a book, and you will see there are many things taken out that would have been interesting to see, and sometimes it is a big part of it. Take the hunger games for example. When the mutts come in the book, Katniss recognizes them as the dead competitors. In the film, no mention is made whatsoever.
There are many reasons books are better than the movies made for them. Books are seen and imagined in your head just the way you want to them to be, not the way the director imagines the book. Too often, movies made after successful books are nothing compared to the book. Plus books are good for keeping the brain active and healthy, that's something that movies cannot do, plus books are quite fun to read and are great for passing time.
They require a lot more time and effort than books, and in terms of how well they keep our attention, they do better than books. In a book, you have to imagine how places and people look like on your own. In movies, it takes skill to re-enact an example of the situation in a book, and this can make a story easier to understand. Some people claim that it is more "fun" to imagine something yourself, but if I wanted to do that, I wouldn't need a book to read. In truth, I believe people who say " The book is better than the movie" are just trying to sound intelligent.
While its always better to read, sometimes a book can leave a lot more to be imagined than the reader bargained for.
I have a BA in English Literature, so yes, I read, write and discuss literature all the time. It smacks of snobbery and intellectual dishonesty however when blanket statements such as "the book is always better than the movie" are made. Yes, a lot of time this is true, but film, like literature is art and what we take away from both are purely subjective.
Definitely, the crux of this argument lies in the term 'better'. Does better means more enjoyment? More imagination? A clearer story?
I would argue that both have its merits, and they work for different people. For the more visual and audio people, definitely movies will be more enjoyable (better) and the satisfaction value is greater watching movies then reading books. However, for the imaginative and creative people who prefers to let their imagination wander out of the box rather in be led via visual aids, they are more likely to enjoy books more and think that books are better than their video