Motion Pictures or Books?

[knightofthe21stcentury]

So what do you think? Both sides have their benefits and disadvantages. I hope this won't be a bit bias, posting it in "T3h Movie World"...

BTW, when I say "Motion Pictures" I mean films, TV programs/series', cartoons... anything with magical moving pictures, not including those small spinners, because they don't really tell a story.  

[Travis III]

I like both.
Motion pictures are great when one has a couple of hours to kill, but books require somewhat more of an attention span.
If it's a good book, I'll devour it pretty quickly, though.  

[consultantnerd]

I am sort of torn in two with this one, as the whole of the Harry Potter series, the books have been better then the movies, as with Eragon, but Stormbreaker was a brilliant movie, I loved it. Also, some o the Doctor Who books have been writen based on the TV Shows, but, sometimes they're written better, as imagining the characters can be better then getting them thrown at you. But, sometiems the characters you get thrown at you are supberb. So, I do not really know..

 

[knightofthe21stcentury]

Decster97

I am sort of torn in two with this one, as the whole of the Harry Potter series, the books have been better then the movies, as with Eragon, but Stormbreaker was a brilliant movie, I loved it. Also, some o the Doctor Who books have been writen based on the TV Shows, but, sometimes they're written better, as imagining the characters can be better then getting them thrown at you. But, sometiems the characters you get thrown at you are supberb. So, I do not really know..

Yeah like the glass dalek, and the huge mutants in "The Daleks", which they couldn't probably because of budgets.  

[Octaru250]

Sometimes the movies themselves are not bad, but the book always comes to be better. I liked 21, the boo(not by the same name), and the Ruins...Hated the Eragon movie(OMG)and I like the book(s).
♠ ◊ ♣ ♥

 

[Lightwater2520]

Depends.  

[knightofthe21stcentury]

Lightwater2520

Depends.

That didn't really add much. You're just posting for the competition, aren't you?  

[ClumsyDino]

I'm one for the original. Books tend to be better than the movie but I really like movies that used to be books as well... so for me... it's a tie.  

[WillWintter]

Books almost every time, there are rare cases the opposite are true but not worth really searching through crap.  

[gOtHiC_MuSiC_DeVviL]

I perfer reading a good book but its easier to watrch a movie biggrin  

[pepper79]

I like both but books in my mind are better  

[Tobias Mule]

Both have their place.
I try to like both interpretations. I like to see how the material is used to make a good movie.
But...
I haven't found a book-to-movie adaptation where I liked the movie better than the book.  

[ClumsyDino]

Heh heh... it's kinda cool to see a movie after you read the book though... kinda nice to see how your mental image of the characters compare to the actors/actresses.  

[sankapoo]

I'd have to say it really depends. Like on the Harry Potter films, the books were amazing, they should have never made a movie out of them.

but then you've got movies like LOTR and Fight Club that were amazing.

Both the books and the movies.

It really just depends, plus, if you really just want something to pass the time without much thinking, obviously a movies way more up your ally, since reading actually takes brain power and patience. rofl  

[knightofthe21stcentury]

Yeah, lots of things in films are impossible to put into pictures, like strange feelings (I'm thinking of LOTR) and smells.