Well, i think the books are better cuz they have all of the details. The movies take out somethings. Like HP and the sorcerer's stone. They took out the part where Harry has to walk through the fire.

I think books are better than movies. I love reading John Grisham books. The Firm was a much better book than movie. Besides the flaw of using Tom Cruise (lol), they added things to make it "hotter" - like a beach scene where he does another woman - but the suspense wasn't as good as the way Grisham had it. They just kept cutting things out and making it kind of...cheap. Cruise's character just wasn't as smart as the one in the book...

Then there's The Golden Compass. The book was good. The movie...well...just didn't live up to expectations...~_~;

i prefer books too!!!! it's has more detailed and information, and it seems more complete...and movies ended too fast for me, i want to capture all the moments and scenes that i created in my mind as i read. I don't know, i guess i just didn't want the story to end so fast so i read really slow ^^

well yeah i'd say movies are better than books, i'm sick of spending days on a book rather than a 2 hour movie, both seems the same

my brother told me that with movies you only need about 2 hrs. to finish the story.
on the other hand reading the book would probably take about a day or two, so he prefers the movie..he doesn't want to spend so much time i guess..heehee..

hmm..with books,people can have their own image of the character.i guess readers could also know more of what the character is thinking when reading a book.

with movies,they're not bad.the movie just probably cuts some details or change a little bit of the book, but that's okay for me as long as it doesn't change the whole story.

I think so. Even though movies are easier, books have descriptions and time management that really satisfy the audience. I feel movies that are based from books tend to be too abrupt.