Invariably, I find the movie version disappointing. Tom Bombadil didn't make it into Lord of the Rings; the Hindu orange was removed from Life of Pi, leaving just lots of Catholic/Christian blue and white to balance with Muslim green, and thus throwing it all off; and the movie version of Dune felt like disconnected images/scenes with little of the deep economic and religious plot holding them together.

It is interesting what directors will choose to cut, keep, and edit. I understand how a lot of the character's inner dialogue is lost in the movies, but I think some directors do take a little too much liberty sometimes.
It amazes me how much a good author can capture with words on a page that you just can't get in the silver screen. How just reading can immerse your mind so much that you start to taste, feel, and smell what the character is experiencing.
I'm not sure if I would prefer one way over the other. Both movies and books have their place, and sometimes watching the movie is like another version of the same story.

I have read several bestsellers that were made into movies, and I simply didn't like all the movies. "Memories of a Geisha" is one book that I enjoyed every moment of reading, but when I watched the movie, I felt like "Oh no you've messed up the story".
When reading, I live my own world, I build my own imagination and enjoy my own ambiance. I see the characters the way I would prefer for them to be and live with them in places where I would wish to be with them in.
Then, after all this beautiful world I've built while reading comes a movie that destroys all my world, my imagination and my ambiance! How could I ever enjoy it?

To make and adaptation of a great book is the hardest work on cinematography. The problem is that the director has a diferent interpretation about every part of the story. The image that comes in our mind is diferent to everybody when we read and as a result of filmaking, we have an image which was already "cougth" by other eye. By the other hand we can not judge a movie based on its similarities with the book, couse de movie and the book are two diferent codes, so we can just say "i like the move or i prefere the book and make my own images", but not judge the director even we are talking and being critic with the last film of new Ed Wood.

In the hunger games they made Katniss likable and the wrong person gave her the mockingjay pin. I prefer the first and last book to there movie counterparts But I prefer the catching fire movie.

Yes, I read the book Divergent and the following the movie came out and as me and my friend were watching the movie I would recall every detail and scene in the book that the movie missed. At the end the movie was successful but you definitely grab the sense and submerge into the character's perspective and feeling that it bring a paper with words to a reality were you are born into their world. so I definitely enjoy the book better in my feelings nd thinking, but in the other hand the movie clarify some unclear seetings and objects show in the movie

Well, as far as I remember, the movie always skips some details from the book. But I think it's not possible to turn a full book into a movie, it would last FOREVER. Also, although they are different ways to express things, it could be dissapointing to watch the movie when you have already read the book and your expectations are high!

Yes, some differences were that the movie skipped some details it really wouldn't describe Visual things cause your watching it so the little destabilize that the book would mention you wouldn't realize In a movie because it's not directly being told to you. I prefer reading the book. I like taking my time and reading in certain areas. I enjoy the discriptive language the book uses rather than in movies.

Even though it is the same story, the way someone can understand it may be different. When you read a story you can imagine the story the way you want, the cahracters you want or the way you cna understand the feelings of the character. When the sotry is made to a movie the details are cut, edited so sometimes they ruin the entire story. In my personal opinion I would rather read the book than watching the movie because I might miss a detail that can change to whole story.

Yes one example is the "Hunger Games". This is a series of books that have been adapted into three movies , I think. Their were some differences, I prefer the books because it gave you more details and you could imagine what was happening in your own way and their are some parts that are not in the movie.

I have read many fiction books that have been turned to movies, like the Percy Jackson and Hunger Games series. Some differences are that the movies are missing some feelings the protagonist feels or ideas that comes to his/her head before a battle that can't be showed in a movie. I prefer the books because it explain everything thoroughly and detailed.

I have read many books that were turned into movies like "The Fault in our Stars" but I prefer the book because it shows more descriptions and experiences that the characters go through, so in most cases I prefer the books.

One of my favourite books is P.D. James's "Children of Men". I was so engrossed with the story that I read it in one sitting. I literally could not put it down. When I saw the movie version, I wasn't disappointed so much as I was surprised as the premise of the book was still the same, but the narrative was completely different. This wasn't necessarily a bad thing as there were now two engrossing narratives (one prose and one film) centred around the one premise. It means that a film version of the novel's narrative can be created that will stand alone from the first film.

Whenever I see that a book I like is being adapted into a movie I immediately go and see it. The obvious differences between the book and the movie are the loss of the characters thoughts and sometimes their feelings. Whole scenes are lost that, although don't contain anything vital to the plot, contain important character development which can completely change the way the story and even certain lines are understood in the movie. Personally I like books better, but movies give you the advantage of spoon feeding you scenes that are harder to understand in the book.

In The Perks Of being a wallflower, there were many differences between the movie and the book. The movie left out some details that would have made it better not just to understand, but it would have made the movie better. I personally prefer the book, because it gives more details. However when you read the book and then watch the movie the movie shows you more of how the characters feel it gives a little more of an incite.

The whole Harry Potter series except the last book- Harry Potter and the Cursed Child Part 1 and 2 which is a play. The movies obviously had less information than the books and missed some really important points but helped in understanding a few scenarios and characters.
The Percy Jackson series only has 2 movies as far as I know but I think that the books are way more better than the movies. The movies miss all the excitement and energy which you get while reading.
Angels and Demons is a fantastic book and the movie is great too. Both are worth reading and watching respectively.

yes like a book

I rather read books that watching movies because it gives you more freedom. As many here have said, it allows us to imagine the characters the way we like. We fit ourselves into their world and, at the same time, kind of fit them into ours. We relate characters to our friends or ourselves and fit our lives in their journeys.

I hated Percy Jackson adaptations because the movie made no sense at all. In that case, I actually watched the movie first and I didn't like it. Then, when I read the book, I realised how good the movie could have been and grown to loathe it.

It's not that I think a movie has to be the same from the book. The movie is a new work and it needs to be able to stand by itself. Like Harry Potter movies - different from the books, the final product is still good. It makes sense.

I tend to avoid watching films made from books I have read. When I do, I consciously try not to build expectations and enjoy the movie for the independent product it is.

I watched the musical Les Misérables and found it more fascinating than the book itself. Although the book is already a great success, the musical adds the element of music which makes the work more grand. It also makes it easier for people to understand and empathy with the characters. Thus I prefer the musical than the book.

"Salmon fishing in the Yemen" stands out to me. I saw the movie first, not knowing it was an adaptation, then I read the book. I thought the movie was amazing, but when I read the book, I was discovered a completely different story. The movie told the story in a traditional manner, while the author's story was told in a challenging manner, through diary entries and letters. It was harder to get into the book but there was a moment where you are submerged in their world. I loved both.

yes. The book was way more explicit. I prefered the book.

Diary of a wimpy kid. The movie wasn't as detailed as the book told. I preferred the movie because I don't like to read

Yes. You feel more when you read the book than when you watch the movie.

Yes, I have already read a work of fiction that was adapted into a movie. The Book allow me to be more creative and imagine the characters, places, scenes etc. In the movie, all of the work is done for you with actors and other visual details. (Anais Veyne)

Invariably, I find the movie version disappointing. Tom Bombadil didn't make it into Lord of the Rings; the Hindu orange was removed from Life of Pi, leaving just lots of Catholic/Christian blue and white to balance with Muslim green, and thus throwing it all off; and the movie version of Dune felt like disconnected images/scenes with little of the deep economic and religious plot holding them together.

i was mentaly addicted to the maze runner series maybe i should have waited two years but it would not stop me i read it anyways i was in many worlds with many dangers and i "was" the main character it was amazing the greatest series ive ever read...other then lord of the rings but thats diffrent i loved the series so much and when they turned it into movies nothing was going to stop me from watching them but when i did it was full on depresing they were NOTHING like the book NOTHING

I think that sometimes the producers of the films omit some events that in the book are expressed with more details so that the film is not so long, for example the saga of DIVERGENTE in the book is more about what happens after the end of the movie with the actors thing that in the movie you do not see much

sometimes the movie but also sometimes the book i think the book gives more details but the movie gives more emotion so in my opinion i like the movie better

It was intriguing what scenes made it to the final edition of the film, how directors choose to cut parts of the original stories, and how they change things from character, places os scenes. I’d rather watch the movie after I read the book, simply because that way I know what the real story is about.

Some of the differences between the story and the movie were the details, in a fiction book there are a bunch of details that make you feel and think as the character but in the movie is more visual.

There are many books that have been adapted to movie, and in the majority of the original story is forgotten and in the movie only show some of the important moments of the book, they also omit some characters that are relevant for the understanding of the story

If I hadn't read the book, the movie would have been VERY confusing. It didn't explain much and left lots of good bits from the book out.

If I didn´t read the book before I watched the movie I wouldn't have been able to understand! it really helps reading the book first.

No

It seems nowadays every work of fiction is being turned into a movie. I remember many books I have read that was adapted into a movie and some were just as good as the book, better than the book, and worse than the book. I noticed that a lot of detail gets left out when books are adapted into movies and that's probably because that actors/actresses can act out the feelings/emotions rather than describing them. I also notice it seems a lot of directors will cut or edit out certain information that you read in the book because it wasn't necessary for the growth of the movie. It depends on how well the director does to show and express the book. Sometimes I like the movie better than the book, but sometimes I prefer reading the description and imaging it upon myself than watching actors/actresses perform the act.

"Half girlfriend" was made into a movie. The movie was good and it engaged my emotions but I prefer the novel as it was more descriptive and the best part of that novel, it's climax, wasn't accurately described in the movie. Some of the key points of the novel which shape the direction of the story such the struggles of the protagonist were also not shown much in the movie.

The fiction book I have read that was also turned into a movie was To Kill A Mockingbird. Some differences between the two items were in the movie it wasn't as I imaged at some spots like with the houses that scouts road. Other times it was spot on with the trial and how it affected the book tremendously and how scout learned about segregation at the time. There weren't that many differences when it come between the two but both are great and I would choice the movie because it provides an image and a look to see what is actually inside.

when I was in fifth grade, we read a book called My Side Of The Moutain about a kid who runs away from home and ends up living on a mountain where he makes his home in the trunk of a giant tree and makes friends with a falcon and a racoon and lives there for years. after reading the book we watched the movie that was made in the 60's and it was TERRIBLE. not because it was old but because the movie was cut short because they decided to have the falcon (one of the main "characters") get killed, which is not at all what happened in the book. so I think it's pretty obvious that I prefer the book over the movie.

I have read To Kill a Mockingbird and seen the movie. The movie went along the lines of the book but some specific things in the book that the characters had said were not in the movie. The family such as Aunt alexandra and cousin Francis were never introduced in the movie. I enjoyed the book more than the movie because I connected more with the characters throughout the book rather than just watching the movie.

I read the book Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief over the summer after fifth grade. There were a lot of minor differences from the book and the movie. Annabeth was suppose to have blonde hair, but in the movie she had brown hair. Luckily in the second movie, it was corrected. In the book, Percy is 12/13 years old; in the movie, Percy looks much older than 12/13. I prefer the book more because I prefer to visualize the setting and characters.

I have read some books that was adapted into movies, and I noticed it might have the differences. It is interesting how the directors decide to keep and cut the plots, but sometimes it was a little bit too much, therefore it disappointed people who have read it before. Then, I prefer book better than movie

Yes, movies like Harry Potter and How to kill a mocking bird. Some of the differences would be things such as not being able to see the perspective of other main characters as well as things such as how you'd think they look, act, or sound like being completely different from what you imagined but mainly its the cuts that directors make to the movie to make it not way too long that differentiates them. I'd say about ninety percent of the time I prefer the book but once in a while I have preferred the movie, the reason is because I like getting to know the whole story and read the original so I can see what I missed due to movie cuts.

Yes, the book "Maximum Ride" was converted into a movie and was on Netflix. At first, I was so happy to watch it. As the movie kept going, it just wasn't the same. The book described the characters feelings so well, that whenever I read it I would feel the same things. The movie's actors and actresses that portrayed the characters of the novel didn't do a good job in expressing the emotions through their acting. It also seems like whenever a book is made into a movie, there are always important details missing! It goes to say, the book version will usually be better.

It was intriguing what scenes made it to the final edition of the film, how directors choose to cut parts of the original stories, and how they change things from character, places os scenes. I’d rather watch the movie after I read the book, simply because that way I know what the real story is about.

yes, it is interesting what parts are taken out because most of them are very descriptive, most likely because it would make movie too long. i prefer the movie tho because i dont like to read.

The Maze Runner book series. As with any book, you are going to be more engaged in it as it describes the situation and scene more than a movie will. The biggest differences would be what the maze and characters looked like, we couldn't see them in the book and were only given a small description. I usually prefer books more to be able to get a better understanding of the story and more description. However, I do love watching movies.

I have read many books that were turned into movies like The Maze Runner but I prefer the book because it shows more descriptions and experiences that the characters go through, so in most cases I prefer the books.

I read the harry potter books and I watched all of the movies. Now while there are differences I really enjoyed the movies personally. But one main difference is that in the books there is a sphinx in the maze and there was no sphinx in the maze in the movies. Also a lot of things in the books are more explained than in the movies there are less detail.

I have never read a book that has adapted into a movie but i have watched a movie that made me want to read the book that was already created it was Percy Jackson and the lightning thief and i had to say i completely prefer the movie over the book just because i am more of a visual learner and like to see what is actually happening instead of just reading it on a couple pages and i think the movie had me more interested the entire time when the book got boring at some parts.

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. After reading the book in my english class, I decided to watch the movie because I thought it was actually very interesting. While watching the movie, I noticed that they seemed to have focused more on Atticus and his story rather than focusing on Scout like in the book. The movie also didn't have as much details than the book. I personally prefer the book over the movie.

I have read the Percy Jackson series made by Rick Riordan, although I had the displeasure of watching the movie first before the book, I really disliked the movie but when I started reading the first book, I was hooked and couldn't put the series down reading the series was all i did at the time.

My favorite book during my early childhood was The City of Ember, and I was thrilled at the time to find out that a film adaptation was created. But this excitement was soon met with disappointment. I had pictured the setting differently and the characters did not carry as much genuine charisma. The development of the story and character arcs were not nearly as defiant as they were in the book. One of the biggest differences was the addition of a giant mole in the movie. This was added for subsidiary thrill, and I personally found it confusing and unnecessary. Although they were different and that drove my disappointment, the movie on its own was fine and it was still interesting to see my favorite characters come to life.

Honestly I liked the movie more but that's probably just because I'm not a reader. Watching a movie after reading the book, you already know there's gonna be bits and pieces missing and also a few things different. From dialogue to missing scenes, big to little differences I still enjoyed the movie more.

I was excited when I found out there were movies about my favorite book series, the Twilight Saga, and when I started watching the movies I loved them. But then I realized that I didn't really feel that deep of a connection because I couldn't feel the characters emotions as well as I could in the books. Some of the actors couldn't really show their emotions as well as the writer did for the characters in the books.

The first one I thought of was the Harry Potter Series. The movies were really good in my opinion, but I liked reading through all of the books better because of the amount of detail J. K. Rowling put into her characters and settings, which let me create my own version of the wizarding world. When I watched the movies, the settings were different from the ones the book let me imagine, which is why I preferred reading rather than watching.

yes! i have read the twilight series. Some of the differences was that the main character was more I would say alive then what was put out in the movie. the character was more talkative then when the movie she was shy and more quiet. I watched the movies first, so I thought I would prefer the movies when reading the book. when I read the books i loved them so much that I like the books more because the life the author gave all the characters.

One of my favorite books was Ender's Game which was adapted into a movie but the issue with this movie is that none of the characters were developed enough making the entire movie not feel right. That is why I much prefer the book.

I've read a majority of the Harry Potter books and seen all the movies. Personally, I prefer the movies. You can watch them and not get caught on boring throwaway plot point Rowling puts into the books. The movies are quick and offer a complete and finished story. Also JK Rowling is a complete hack that manipulates her already finished media, to further her political agenda, and appease her rabid, dog-like fanbase

I have read several books that later turned into movies such as The Fault in Our Stars or If I Stay. It's interesting to see what parts of the story the director cuts out, changes, or adds to the movie versions. I normally prefer the book because it has more details and is more of the "original" work.

I have read books turned into movies. One of which is the Hunger Games series. In the books you know what the character is thinking and exactly what they see. In the movie you can see the characters and it gives you a much better understanding as to what everything looks like rather than trying to imagine it. Of the two I would prefer to watch the movie.

The difference between the two is that sometimes the movie is a little more real then the book because you can put alot of things in a book but you cant in a movie. i prefer a book because its gives more detail.

My absolute favorite book “Coraline” was adapted into a movie a couple years after it was written. The movie is almost completely different than the book in the way the quest and plot of the movie take place. I preferred the movie because the plot had a lot more substance to it than the books.

The most iconic book that I can think of if of course harry potter. I like the movies and the way that they were created, but the book just has so much more in depth description. It is a lot easier to write emotions and feelings than it is to act them out. The movie did do an excellent job of creating settings out of the descriptions in the books, and really bringing the story to life.

It is very entertaining to notice the differences between the books and the movies. I personally feel in most cases the books do a better job a describing and making you feel what the authors was trying to make you feel. The movies also seem to leave things out of books and or add new things. I prefer to watch the movies only because I am not the biggest reader, but if I find a good books I'd rather read into the story than watch the story.

Ye, I read the maze runner series. It is always very weird to see the differences between the book and the movie. You can sometimes see characters missing, as I did with this series, and you can see the whole setting change, as what happened in the 2nd movie of the series. I honestly prefer the book more, just because it was the original or so you can say, but it is also very hard to fit a long process like writing a book to an hour and a half to two hour screen showing.

Reading the divergent series was really thrilling and was an overall great time. I read the entire series very quickly because dystopian future is a topic I enjoy reading about. Unfortunately when it came to cinemas the story was ruined for me. The first film was enjoyable because it relatively follows the story line put in place by the book, but as the movies came out the story line slowly shifted away from what I remembered from the books. I understated that the story wasn't going to follow perfectly but it was difficult watching another story from what I knew. It also didn't sit well with many of the other fans of the series as well. The trilogy was going to made into a 4 movie series but the 3rd installment failed so horribly that the creators ultimately canceled the final film.

yes, the book war of the worlds, by Steven Spielberg, some of the differences are that in the movie, the aliens landed in California, but the book they landed In England first, or, in the novel it took place a few years from the end of the 19th century, while in the movie both world wars had passed. I prefer the movie because of the action you can see in it, don't get me wrong the books great, but the movie was by far better.

Cirque Du Freak by Darren Shan, A 12 book series. a movie came out about the first book. I enjoyed the books better as they were a lot more interesting and detailed. the movie was very sloppy and missed a lot of key points in the book.

Yes there has been a book I have read that got adapted into a movie. The book I read was called The Maze Runner by James Dashner. There were many differences from the book to the move for example the way they described the monsters that chased them if anybody entered the maze. After reading the book then watching the movie I noticed that it was very similar to the book. Also the way they described their home base in the middle of the maze was different then how they showed it in the movie. I preferred the movie because it showed me what happened in the book and it showed me all the intense actions that the author wrote about and I got into the movie a lot faster than the book.

I once read the book "Heaven is For Real," but read it after watching the movie. They were fairly the same, which was surprising since it focused on religion and the shocking events relative to Christianity. I enjoyed both versions, which were similar (I'd say 9/10), however some of the scenes were fairly overly-done/overly-emotional/cheesy, which made some of the most important scenes more difficult to believe for this who weren't generally on the same boat as the main characters. But I believe the special effects also played a positive roll at times, mostly for those who are passionate about the religion and believe what may be possible about it. On one side, it could do miracles into getting to a person's heart to do good and spread love, while on the other side it could moreso convince someone who was not watching it for the religious side, but for the storyline or family credits.

Yes i have read a book of fiction that was adapted into a movie. Some of the differences of between the Book of I Am Number Four and the movie is the back story on how they arrived on earth, because in the movie it starts with Four and the others already on earth. Some other differences were the development of his powers and when they came to him and how fast he learned to use them. I definitely prefer the book because it provided so much more information and gave so much background and details it had me really understanding every situation that occurred inside of the book.

I had originally watch the 2000 film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho before reading the novel, but upon reading the novel I found that there were multiple differences from the novel and the film. Some being the shear volume and intensity of Patrick Batemans insanity. The novel would have full chapters describing the murders and rapes Bateman had committed while the movie showed none of these. Which is understandable as most of the incidents described could not be shown in a movie released to the masses. The movie also cut out his love interest, his secretary Jean, who almost turned him to good. But the one thing watching the movie first was able to do was give me a face to put on the names who I was reading. Overall I think I preferred the novels adaptation better then the movie. This is because the book was able to make me feel everything he was putting this victims through, and by the end of the novel I had a guttural hatred for Bateman.

I read The Maze Runner that then got adapted into a movie. The biggest difference for me was the look of the setting most importantly the maze. When I saw the movie it took me a moment to discern what was what for a second because of how differently I pictured it in my head. I prefer the book because it is more detailed and it appeals in a different way than the movie can. Also the additional detail in the books is nice.

I read the lord of the rings. I liked the first book a bit more because it just felt better to read something that seemed more descriptive and had more in it than the movie. I feel that way about most books though because movie adaptations don't seem as good, probably because some things are not as you imagined.

Me personally I prefer to read books than watch movies because to me it gives me more freedom to picture the setting and characters the way I want to inside my imagination. I believe sometimes movies ruins the books because the author is giving plenty of detail so that the reader is able to picture the characters for themselves but when they make a movie based on a book it doesn't always meet the requirements of the book.

I read the hunger games books, the movie adds some things but also doesn't include others. I preferred the movie over the book, only because I enjoy movies more than books.

A work of fiction that was adapted into a movie was Percy Jackson. Some of the differences was that the antagonist of the story had changed in the movie and also another difference is that the movie series has only two movies and the book series has five books. I personally prefer the book series becasue they are more detailed and just have a way better way of describing the characters.

Yes it was Harry Potter and some changes from the book to the movie were some of the little details that the movie had missed or some of the polt that the movie had missed. And I prefer the book because it had more time to go into detail with the characters then the book

Yes I have it was Harry Potter. Some of the differences were that the movie had left out some details about some characters that the book had. I prefer the book because it had a lot more detail then the move.

Yes! I have read a lot of different stories that turns to be adapted into a movie, I really prefer books over movies because one of the biggest difference that you can see are the attention to the details. The feeling of reading and watching the story are both mery different, I think the two of them have their pros and cons.
Although they are very connected, the way these two are made is very different so they do not have a point of comparison.

A very popular book, 'The Lightning Thief' was a really big disappointment to me when it was turned into a movie. The movie left out crucial details, didn't really go into depth of the main character's upbringing and during the whole movie, I could not connect with any of the characters. So much of the plot was changed and it just wasn't the same amazing book I read because the movie left out so much. The scenes where they fought were an even bigger letdown and just couldn't compare to the book despite having the imaginations play out in front of me.

Harry Potter and Percy Jackson, while the books are so good, the movies are VERY DISAPPOINTING. They are so different from the books and the books are the reason I watched the movies! Percy Jackson did not find the pearls on a huge statue, and Harry Potter was just wrong.

I watched a “Wrinkle in Time” Right after I finished the book, and honestly it was kind of disappointing. The movie itself wasn’t bad, but the fact that they’d changed or taken out so many things that were originally in the story just made it seem wrong.

I like how lots of stories can make different problems come back together through imagination. One example is when I read "Percy Jackson And The Lightning Thief."
This story felt so real, and that's proof on how everything managed to stop toward the end. I also like how the movie sets up a whole different story from the actual book.
The image in my head looked nothing like what the movie showed, but the story truly did make my mind spiral while reading it.

i have read some fiction stories like spider man however there were some differences in the story book and the movie. It was much easier to identify the enemies of spider man in the movie but in the book it was very difficult as the story was like a merry go round. Still in my opinion its better to first read the book and then watch the movie.

Yes I have read fiction book of Harry Potter which also developed into movie. But I have more interest in movie because the way the characters expressed their roles in the movie was way more relatable and understandable by viewers.

Yes I have read fiction book of Harry Potter which also developed into movie. But I have more interest in movie because the way the characters expressed their roles in the movie was way more relatable and understandable by viewers.

I think books and movies both are good in there fields. I have read the Harry Potter series as well as saw all the movies. Books are good in description and makes reader think of different situations as for movies they change quiet a bit from the book with complete different scenarios sometimes. As for movies they make us visualize more than the books.
I prefer books than movies as they create a lot more fun and experience when reading the fiction.

I have read a lot of different stories that turns out to be adapted into a movie but one of them, which is “Animal Farm”, caught up my eye when I read it. The movie was not interested to watch as some characters were not there too and there was not even a small of amount of detailing in there. The setting and plot were a bit different for what I thought while reading the book. I realized that I didn't really feel that deep of a connection because I couldn't feel the characters emotions as well, as I could in the books. Some of the actors couldn't really show their emotions as well, as the writer did for the characters in the book. The ending of the story while reading book got me in such suspense that I got emotionally attached to it but as for the movie, the ending was not good as I really expected to be. I prefer to read books than to watch movies because it gives me more freedom to picture the setting and characters, the way I want to inside my imagination.

I think that sometimes the producers of the films omit some events that in the book are expressed with more details so that the film is not so long, for example the saga of DIVERGENTE in the book is more about what happens after the end of the movie with the actors thing that in the movie you do not see much.sometimes the movie but also sometimes the book i think the book gives more details but the movie gives more emotion so in my opinion i like the movie better

sometimes the movie but also sometimes the book i think the book gives more details but the movie gives more emotion so in my opinion i like the movie better

No I don't have read a work of fiction tha was adapted into a movie.