Angels and Demons

Dan Brown

My brother says (jokingly) he no longer reads books because they ruin the movies.
And, as most people think, the movie never does the book justice.

Or can you appreciate each as its own piece of work and not get angry at one or the other?

Me, I generaly love the book better because it allows me to imagine what things would look, sound, smell like, on my own and it goes so much more in depth than you can even in the best of movies.
But, the movie still brings things to life in a way that simply reading can not. It makes things seem more real sometimes.

Thoughts??
(I just saw that people were posting that there were no discussions so discuss, so hey, why not I thought.)

IMOH books are much better than the movies. However there are exceptions.
I liked the movie Slumdog Millionaire more than the book (Q&A) . Also I thought the LOTR movies were excellent adaptations.

Books are often better than movies, strictly in the case of adaptations. Every time I go to see a movie adapted from a book that I have read, I separate them in my mind, because after Bridge To Terabithia and Eragon, the disappointment was WAY too much. If they are seen as strictly movies, they're fine, but the book gives you so much more detail and insight into the lives of the characters, a lot of which they cannot cram into a movie.
However, if I see a movie adapted from a book I've never read, I read the book, and even if the book is better, I can see the book and movie as equal and somewhat separate.
Also, as a movie maker myself, I keep in mind that certain cuts are necessary in adapting a book, so I don't get outraged when a movie construes or shortens a book. Like the cut of Tom Bombadil in the Lord of the Rings movies was unfortunate, but it did make the movies themselves better.
I'm excited to see how My Sister's Keeper turns out. Anyone else excited for that?

I usually appreciate the books more than the films...Everytime I see a movie that was based on one of my favorite books, it irritates me. But i learned that I shouldn't compare the two. Just because it was based on the book...doesn't mean it will be exactly like it.
And i think you should tell your brother that he should keep reading...he could be missing more that he knows.

Actually that does interest me...but havn't read the book..Wondering if I should before seeking the flick.

Yeah too me books allow you to understand the characters more,while movies only give you a piece of that character.Such as Twilight,no one understood that in the begining Edward wasent thinking romance but murder.So to me books are better and its the movies that ruin books.

i agree, books are always better, but movies are great, they relax and take your mind to a different place as well so i will continue to read and watch both and be disapointed at times, but hey thats like

Making an adaptation of a novel is a tremendous challenge. Generally, the plots of novels are far too complex to depict in a two hour film, so they often have to be cut down, sometimes to the detriment of the story. Also, if the characters of the novel have rich interior lives, this is difficult to show on film. As a result, film adaptations are often (though not always) weaker than the novels they were based on. Short novels, however, and novels with a lot of action tend to fare better. As a general rule, novellas and short stories often make for better films, because the plot lines are more "movie-sized." When I watch a film based on a book I've read, I'm careful to judge the film as a film, and not as the director's attempt to put what I saw in my head on the screen. They're simply different forms, and it's not fair to say films are usually inferior because they are meant to have a different effect.

i agree!!

You're right, the LOTR movies were incredible remakes of the books.