There seems to be a lot of my fave books being turned into films just a lately, Marley & Me, My Sisters Keeper & Time Travelers Wife.  I've also just seen they've made Lovely Bones into a film.  So my question is this - which is better book or film?

Book always, you can use your own imagination and films tend to miss out bits.

Book every time. There's always far more detail and there are better pictures, just like on the radio!

I hate my favourite books being turned into films, you have everything visualised in your head and the onscreen visuals are way too different.  Never quite got over the version of Wuthering Heights from the 70's, and can't bear to watch any of the Jane Austen versions on TV either.  Only ones I enjoyed were PG Wodehouses, and to some extent Agatha Christies, but not the more recent ones which have apparently been "hotted up" so I avoid them too!

For me the book is always better, I've got a very active imagination and everything I read sucks me into that world with images in my mind as clear as any movie.

I once had this conversation with someone I worked with, she hated reading and always prefered the film. She said whenever she read anything she only saw the words on the page and never got any mental images from it.  I felt quite sad for her and could imagine why she found reading so boring.  I guess all our minds are 'wired' differently.

Yep books for me as well.  I watch a film from a book and then think "that bits missing" etc  I know they can't put every bit from a book in a film but it leaves me disatisifed when it happens.

I love Dark Materials trilogy and watching the film The Golden Compass left me cold, it hardly bore any resemblance to the film and the ending well, LOL

I tend to lose myself in a good book, but a film of it will probably leave me cold.

> once had this conversation with someone I worked with, she hated reading and always prefered the film. She said whenever she read anything she only saw the words on the page and never got any mental images from it.

That is sad, my mum has always read tons & tons so I also started at an early age & have loved it ever since.  I also amazed at how much my tastes have changed as I've aged - dare I say it I read much better quality material now than 10 years ago when it was all chick lit!!

I tend to agree with you all on this, with the odd exception -  the Chronicles of Narnia that have so far been turned into films were amazingly done & very true to the original story.  I also recently watched the Sky version of Martina Cole's The Take - amazing, I loved it!

The reviews for TTWife aren't that good either, I think this will be difficult to get across in a film, I definitely had to use my imagination with this book!

Definately books.As already mentioned our imagination always leads us to decide what the characters look like and often I am disappointed at castings.My sisters keeper was so watered down from the book that it totally missed the essence of the morals Jodi Picoult was making in her book.

In the majority of cases I would definitely say books are better.  However, there are two that spring to mind that was reasonably good in comparison to the book; The Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile.

I've always been a bookworm and still am, but I always thought I was a bit odd in that when I read I 'see' everything played out as images in my head.   So clear that I could describe the characters in detail.   Nice to know there are others out there just like me.

No film maker could ever be completely true to a book, it would have to be hours and hours long for starters, and of course you use your own imagination with books too.

I would see a film first and then read the book as other way around is always disappointing, unless you read the book many years earlier, like with the Lord of the Rings films, where I ahd fogotten a lot of the detail after 25+ years.

> The Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile.

Two of my favourite films, but never read the books, as I tend to liek to read pure fiction, so no5t titles I'd choose for reading.

I saw the time travelers wife last night.
It was a few years ago that I read it, so it was a bit hazy anyhow.
Twas quite good but OH hated it, 13 yrold cried and loved it neither had read it, just me. It was okay. 

> In the majority of cases I would definitely say books are better.  However, there are two that spring to mind that was reasonably good in comparison to the book; The Shawshank Redemption and Green Mile.

I think The Kite Runner was a beautiful film too, even though I loved the book. Normally I'm with Brainless - watch the film first, then read the book.

The Time Traveller's Wife seems to be a 'Marmite' book - people either love it or hate it. I'm in the hate camp, so won't be in a hurry to watch the film.

M.

> Normally I'm with Brainless - watch the film first, then read the book.

That's where I'm going wrong then! lol  I nearly always read the book first, then film, and then nearly always disappointed!

Brainless.. I thought Shawshank Redemption / Green Mile are fiction?

Ah, another one Lily yes, The Kite Runner!

I was relieved that "Marley & me" the film was not as awful as the book (imagine if people copied it with their own dogs!) -the book I wanted to tear to shreds and I wanted to shoot those idiotic, cruel people. (And that's holding back on my opinions!!)

"Confessions of a shopaholic" & "PS I love you" were HUGE disappointments in the film versions. For a start, in one the setting was moved from England to the US, in the other from Ireland to the US. Why on earth could they not have kept the original locations?

"Angels and demons" was also disappointing in the film version. One person who died in the book lived in the film, two major scenes (the ones really making the book) never happened at all, and one main character didn't exist in the film.

"The Horse Whisperer" I actually saw the film of before I read the book and I think that's the only time I've been disappointed in the BOOK -because the ending was so completely different. Had I read the book first I think I'd have been disappointed in the film instead.

The Harry Potter films are really the only ones sticking closely to the books and that's thanks to JK Rowling insisting on it.

> Normally I'm with Brainless - watch the film first, then read the book.

trouble is that I would normally read the book long before a film was made :)

The most disappointing film I ever saw after reading a book was Dune.  The film was totally incomprehensible unless you'd read the book and if you'd read the book, the film was awful. 

> I think The Kite Runner was a beautiful film too

Yes it was, but I still don't think it addressed all the issues the books raises. I absolutely adore this book & recommend it to everyone so maybe I'm a bit biased!

Agree that Shopaholic & PS I Love you were bad compared to the book, I don't know why they felt the need to switch locations, for me Shopaholic being in London made me enjoy it more!

I think the authors should insist that the film adaptation sticks to their original story - maybe they get tempted by too many £ or $ signs!! :(

I seem to read many books before they are turned into films and i feel that they miss out some fundemental parts to the films
I loved the book Memoires of a Geisha and then sat on a plane decided to watch the film, very disappointed and wanted to switch the film off but kept watching in the hope it would get better,it didn't. I felt the film was very very boring.

A few of my friends have read Marley and Me first and then seen the film, said the film ruined the story. Not yet myself got around to watching the film, but have read the book.

I have read Lovely Bones and much as i thought it was a good book i felt it was a bit mishaped in the way it was written, so we'll see.

As for Stephen King films, i have read many of his books and seen many of his films and can say they tend to cover the story very well in the films.