This popped into my head, reading the various positions on the worth of the Dune movies and its obvious corollary issue. So, someone writes a book and it's popular. Years later, someone else makes a movie, supposedly based on the book. That works better sometimes than others, but people who think that the book is "better" (whatever that means) usually get on a high horse about that.
I find myself in a quandary on this. Books can obviously indulge more lengthy conversation and detail, but they don't have imagery, sound and motion. Movies, on the other hand, can quicken the pace so that someone who does NOT want to read, for example, The Lord of the Rings, can consume the story somewhat more quickly. Nuances are lost, details are changed, but now I know what Sauron looks like now. Our brains consume images much better than words.
So, what's your preference and why? I prefer to see book-based movies before I read the book. Lots of people righteously and morally pronounce that the movie isn't as "good" as the book. The current focus of this seems to be the Dune movies, people's expectations of what they'd be, perception of characters, look of the environment, etc.
What say ye?
I find myself in a quandary on this. Books can obviously indulge more lengthy conversation and detail, but they don't have imagery, sound and motion. Movies, on the other hand, can quicken the pace so that someone who does NOT want to read, for example, The Lord of the Rings, can consume the story somewhat more quickly. Nuances are lost, details are changed, but now I know what Sauron looks like now. Our brains consume images much better than words.
So, what's your preference and why? I prefer to see book-based movies before I read the book. Lots of people righteously and morally pronounce that the movie isn't as "good" as the book. The current focus of this seems to be the Dune movies, people's expectations of what they'd be, perception of characters, look of the environment, etc.
What say ye?