Books vs. Movie versions
I’m in the process of doing a swap with one of my friends: I loaned her the first book of the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer, which she hasn’t read, and she’s loaning me the movie, which I haven’t seen. This got me thinking about books versus movies. My personal preference is to read books before I see their movie versions. This could be because I’m a book lover at heart, but I think it’s also in part because books allow you the creative control of deciding how to picture characters and events. Movies make that choice for you. Plus, part of the beauty of many books is the way they are written – the form of the language itself.
My experience has always been that the books are better than the movies. I’m thinking of The Horse Whisperer by Nicholas Evans, White Oleander by Janet Fitch, Holes by Louis Sachar, The Tenth Circle by Jodi Picoult, and The Pact by Jodi Picoult. There are many others, as well. The exception could be Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling, which is a more plot-oriented book where the language itself is not especially remarkable. I’ll weigh in on the Twilight film, which kind of looks like a made-for-TV movie. What is your stance?
Filed under Books I Like | Comments (2)2 Responses to “Books vs. Movie versions”
Leave a Reply
I’m reading the Twilight series now (very nearly done, sadly). I saw the movie after I finished the first book.
The book is so much better, I can’t even describe it. That delicious tension that kept me turning the pages just wasn’t there on screen. I actually may not have read the books if I saw the movie first.
I always, always, always read the book first and, without a doubt, the book is always better. Fuller, if you will. White Oleander is a perfect example. They cut so much out of the movie and changed so much that it was just awful.
The only two examples of a movie being as good, if not BETTER than the book is House of Sand and Fog and Snow Falling on Cedars (the only time I have ever seen film capture the feeling of a book!).