Which is better, book or film?

[Esioul]

Sci fi soc recently showed Blade Runner. I'd read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep some time ago, but not seen this film, and a lot of people said to me, 'oh , the film is muchbetetr than the book', but I wasn't sure when I'd seen it... there were some interestign ideas in the book, like the whole thing with the animals, that just werent' there in the film.

[climacus]

I think this needs to be clarified:

Does this question refer to the book versus the film adaptation. Or does it refer to literature in general as opposed to cinema in general???


Climacus

[Esioul]

I mean, is Do Androids Dream of ELectric sleep better than Bladerunner. I'm tipsy and sleep deprived, gah.

[climacus]

Oh duh!

And dont you dare say, "you dumba$$ Yankee."

Climac

[Robert M. Blevins]

I can't tell for sure what climacus meant, but my vote goes to the film of course. Slickly produced, big budget, top-notch actors and acting, effects that work twenty-five years later, creating a an entire world in a couple of hours...yeah, duh.

Oh, yeah. Harrison Ford is in it, too. (lol)

[Leandra]

No preference here. I saw the film first, loved it, then I read the book and loved it, and then I watched the film again. After the first five minutes of clutching my head and going "Oh, gods, how could they change so much?", I accepted the movie as it is.

[steve12553]

I have to agree with Esioul on this one. The movie was so much different but just as good in its own way. In many cases one is so obviously better than the other but here they go in two different directions with the basic concepts that it is really hard to choose. I'll live with them as two entities. Separate but pretty equal.

[Esioul]

That's true- they are like two differnt things, they are so disimilar. The film is barely based on the book at all. Iv'e heard that some people consider the characters to be more endearing in the film.

[Foxbat]

In some ways the film carries a greater poignancy but I'm also of the opinion that they are just too different to compare. It was definitely Ridley Scott's finest film but I don't think it was Dick's best book (for me that has to be The Man In The High Castle). Taking it from that point of view, I'd then have to lean towards the film. But, in reality, I'd rather sit on the fence

[warhammer]

Both are great in their own right

[manephelien]

I'm with warhammer on this one. Both are great.

[world in progress]

The book is good, but the film is a classic.

'Course, I saw the film before reading the book; if it had been the other way around I might not have loved the film as much as I do.

[Cloud]

the term, "better" is rather vague. Do you mean more enjoyable? More successful? More artistic?

I'm not really entitled to vote here, since I haven't read "Do Androids Dream. . . " But I have seen the movie--many times. I'm going to say that the film is "better" in the sense that it is often touted as a SF classic, that more people have seen it and therefore entered into the world of SF than from the book. Therefore it's more successful as an art form, more successful monetarily, and more successful as a SF vehicle.

[MadSpoon]

If I high I prefer a book

[jimbombimbo]

i first read the book in 1971 and thought it brilliant,the film was brill also but i feel it is unfare to compare any book to the film you have to leave to much out therefore the film usualy comes second with the exception of lord of the rings and hell boy.