Which is better, book or film?

Book or film?

  • I prefer the book

    Votes: 18 27.7%

  • I prefer the film

    Votes: 36 55.4%

  • No preference really

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • Total voters
    65
Personally I never seen a film that was better than the book.

films will always be limited because your bum goes numb
after more than 3hrs sitting in those horrible chairs.:rolleyes:
 
the book shows how replicants are the humans and the movie shows how humans are the replicants.........but i vote the movie. The book took me forever to finish it :(
 
I'd have to go with the movie too. Nothing against the book, but i really liked the visual style of this film. Sid Mead and Ridley Scott. Good combination.
 
My sister said to me that she can't believe how from such terrible book they made such great movie.
 
Your sister isnt a fan of PKD right...

It was on tv last night. I couldnt watch it. First time i have seen since i read the book,PKD. It copied scenes,lines but it was mostly flashy visuals, cool Ford but no heart,emotion,ideas in it.

It might be better than the crappy PKD movies but they didnt know how to use the story.

Must be the most overrated film in SF history because people saw it as kids before they read Dick usually....
 
Barbarella said:
Personally I never seen a film that was better than the book.
Click to expand...

99 times out of 100 I would agree with you. One of the best examples: Lord Jim. The movie turned an epic story into hodgepodge of cameo roles and a meandering script.

The one exception I can think of is Sphinx (1981) by Robin Cook. It made a pretty good movie with a better plot than the book. But it's a rather obscure example.
 
I thought the movie was better but the book is well worth reading as it delves more into the question "What does it really mean to be human?". It also has the strange concept of animal ownership associated with status in society. Rutger Houer made for an excellent Roy Batty and Harrison Ford was a good Deckard
 
Have to agree with the previous post that it is rare I say this, but the film adaptation is, to me at least, much better than the book.
(The other films being better than their respective novels, The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, and Silence of the Lambs, obviously not just sci- fi related)
I will also have to admit, being a big fan of PKD, that this is almost an apples to oranges comparison. These two pieces, the book and the film, are entirely two different stories with the names of the characters being the same.
When I first saw the movie, during the theatrical release, I thought it was good although a bit long and tedious. After having seen it numerous times and through all the different versions, the movie has become a classic in my own mind. Not just of sci-fi, but movie making in general.
The book was still good, but didn't have the same meaning to me as the flick. My favorite PKD novel being "A Scanner Darkly".
 
The Book is better --- as Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

Inside the author's mind, you can experience the characters, story, and themes without regard for Hollywood time constraints and the obligatory "happy ending".

Although I loved the movie, and the world Ridley created, I'm a huge PKD fan. The most dramatic point was that Harrison Ford was himself, a "skinjob", the very thing that he was hunting down to kill.
 
I preferred the film. And of all the versions released, I prefer the original cinema release.
 
One of the facets of a written story or novel is the interpretation of the reader. If you see the film first, and it is a really good film, your image of the film will color the book. You see Harrison Ford as Deckard. You see each of the other film actors as the characters in the book. And maybe it disappoints you when it is different even if it is not inferior. To me concepts and execution of the book and each version of the film has enough to offer that I'm happy with the one I'm currently involved in. I purchased the Bluray collection with all five versions of the film and with the exception of the correcting of a few obvious mistakes in one of the versions (as Joanna Cassidy's character is shot down, it was obviously a stunt person it you concentrated on her face) each version had something to offer.
 
I'd like to weigh in with a huge vote for the movie. Ridley Scott completely re-imagined the world originally envisaged by Philip Dick and gave it that cyberpunk and future noir feel.

Philip Dick should be credited for a very original story (that had elements about a figure climbing the mountain and the throwing of stones as I recall, that were omitted from the movie), without which the movie would not have been made. The book gave the skeleton (which Ridley Scott modified) but the movie filled out all the color and details.

Also, Blade Runner, for a movie made in 1982, is still quite watchable today - it has a timeless quality to it (like film noir!), and many have attributed the genesis of the cyberpunk aesthetic to it.

As for Philip Dick, my personal opinion (and I'm sure many will disagree with me) is that his great talent is more in his prolific and original imagination than in his writing style.
 
I prefer the book. The movie was good, but Deckard's monolgues ruined the movie's intellectual and visual appeal.
 
The movie is better but it is extremely different from the book it is supposedly derived from. They were not really androids in the movie, they were genetically engineered humans.

But I don't particularly like PKD anyway.

psik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
A eBooks or paperbacks? What sells better? Publishing 7
Christina Which is a Better Place to Create a Website/Blog? Weebly or WordPress for selling Your Books directl Publishing 10
Parson Is it better to listen to a book then read one? Technology 17
J Which is better, Books or Show? George R R Martin 45
T Would they have done better??(spoilers for The New Jedi Order books) Star Wars (films) 6

Similar threads


Back
Top