Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Twenty4Bella
2 years ago

Well, it’s like, when I read a book and there’s a movie I always read the book because it’s usually different in the movies than in the books. I really like both.

Hello478292
2 years ago

I think movies are better, for example, at Harry Potter, many say that at Harry Potter’s book other things are being told.

But books are actually also good (think I), because sometimes it is also good that you get much more information.

So I’m thinking that both are good.

willihinze
2 years ago

Most of the books, as films whose content can always only be reduced considerably. At Harry Potter, however, I have to say that the filmings were really good.

Jekanadar
2 years ago

Book. Sure.

A film can’t even grasp everything an author tells in his story. He’s just too “fast” medium. Of course, there are some filmings that put their book templates in the shadow, or at least are equal; but they are rough. Examples would be Shining, 1984, or Orange.

And then there are films/series that would be much better without their franchise print. I count Lake Earth, The Watch or the Golden Compass.

verreisterNutzer
2 years ago

Normally, books are always better than the movie. But I’d rather watch movies, because that doesn’t take so long!

🙈😜

moonjosart
2 years ago

The books are always better than the movies. That’s why you always read the books before you look at the movies.

DodgeRT
2 years ago

Books are usually more detailed. More story, more details, more side stories. In addition, you can create figures in your own imagination, etc… Appearance etc.

In the film, something is often omitted for tension or length.

Therefore, for me almost always the books are better

In addition, many books can easily be implemented in a film-technical manner.

TsukiWriter
2 years ago

Book. Almost always.