Good points, simpleman. Novel writing is usually a personal art, reflecting the genius and personality of one person. Usually the best parts of a novel are the really quirky, compulsive chapters. More than likely, a novelist is only trying to please herself. Hollywood movie making on the hand is trying to please the maximum number which distorts the individual eccentricity of novels.
To watch a movie requires no mental exertion, which puts the activity in the category of being passive. When reading a novel, the mind creates it's own unique picture of the characters and storyline, which draws the person into active participation. Also, the imagery in a movie is solely based upon the conceptions the director and producers possess, which makes your experience one of a second-hand nature.
You know character's thoughts, feelings and emotions better than movies. You can read every single one of their innermost thoughts (doubts, hope and fear) In books, character's actions and moves make more sense because we know what they are thinking. Movies show what is happening on the outside and books show what is happening on the inside.
Though movies are attractive as they are visuals, novels really take us out of the world. We ourselves become the characters. But i never felt the same while watching the same in a movie. Some movies are no doubt impressive but i think they can never compete with their novel counterparts!
Novels such as "The Hunger Games" and "Divergent" are often inspirations to great films, which are meant to bring the books to life. In most cases, the movie leaves out a lot of things that I believe are important to the plot of the story to preserve time. So therefore, the book has more to offer and is much better at displaying the overall story.
In most cases, yes, novels are much better than movies based on them. Sometimes, a movie is just as good - like The Lord of the Rings, but that's the only example I can think of right now. I don't think I have ever seen a movie that would be BETTER than its book.
They're better because you get to create a world where you can modify to your liking, you don't have to turn on the TV you just have to grab the book and open it. It's easier to see what's going on inside the character's head. And it's just fun, you get lost in a new world that you wouldn't be able to go to in real life.
I am a HUGE fan of James Patterson, author of "Along Came a Spider" - with the protagonist being Alex Cross. I have been reading his works for many years and so have taken to other of his works. When I finally did see "Along Came a Spider" movie with Morgan Freeman, I was thorughly disappointed - truly the imagination is unlimited when reading, and the fact that the plot had completely changed in the film compared to the novel, changed everything!
One suggestion to movie directors...If you are unsure about the plot of the novel, DON'T GO CHANGING EVERYTHING OTHER WISE YOU CAN'T REALLY SAY: "based on the works of..." ANYMORE!!!
Sure sometimes, maybe even usually, the novel (or the source material at any rate) but not always. Were the Harry Potter books better than the films? Of course, David Yates should get horsewhipped for what he did to the franchise. Was the LOTR novel better than the trilogy? Perhaps. However, Kubrick's The Shining is far superior to King's original work, for starters, it is actually art. I remember reading the Shining and thinking "meh, that was it?" The film, though, actually freaked me out. Similarly, I think Jackson's Hobbit trilogy was better than the Tolkien's (heresy! I know). So it is not a clear cut thing, and you can't generalize, you have to judge them on a case by case basis.
I think it greatly varies. Whereas I truly loved Harry Potter 7/8 and Catching Fire (thinking them equal or even better than the book at some parts), I was disappointed with the Hobbit adaptations.
Yes, novels are (or can be) works of art, but so can movies. Making movies requires so much talent - writing logical and enticing scripts, acting, editing, CGI in some cases, etc. If any of these don't fit together, the movie stiff, out of place: something I realised when watching Desolation of Smaug.
A good movie can make me ponder and be in awe for days.
Most will argue books are better and they can be for the fact they do help you engage more of your brain and imagination instead of sitting in front of a screen witnessing a story with every bit of detail already pretty much made up for you. Well movies are more realistic to an extent just like graphics the goal is to make it real as possible and bring the audience in the movie to be a part of it like they feel when reading books. We are visual learners and I believe reading a book and watching a movie can still give one the same benefits of using one's brain. Same benefits of creativity and imagination, it all depends though. There can and usually are many differences that change circumstances just like a good book being somewhat ruined by a movie. It's not ruined it's just the movie could've been better most of the time. Same thing can happen to movies if it is then turned into a novel it can make it seem annoying if a book were to change and mess up an original movie's plot.
Movies are talent,brilliance and hard work of a lot of people which has to be recognized. Like novels movies are also an art which we enjoy a lot.Some people consider watching movies a passive activity whereas I consider them the brilliance of director.Actors and lot of other people. Moreover they act as a source of entertainment for all of us.
Movies are a talent people may think watching movie passive ,but I think that movies requires a lot of hard work on the part of the movie director and the actors as well. They work as a source of entertainment too and earning also moreover they expose us all the people who have put in their hard work behind the movie.