99% of the time,the Book wins hands down.In a good book,you not only see what people are doing and hear what they say,you also know what they're thinking.In a book,there's room for the author to make asides that add depth to the story and enrich the mind of the reader.Hollywood usually dumbs everything down at best,and at worst leaves out crucial scenes and even characters.Add to that miscasting actors and actresses just to add "selling power" or glamor and you usually end up with tripe.

more times than not, the book is usually better. there have been some great book to screen versions. depends on how close a movie sticks to the book. i realize it would be impossible to put everything from the book in a movie since it would be too long. i really hate it when they take a book turn it into a movie than write their own version and change it so much it is not like the book at all. real disappointing.

Depends on the movie As well as the Book. You just can not depict a Good explosion in a Book. Shootouts, car Chases and other such action demands A movie to really be appreciated.

Books are almost always the way to go. They're generally more entertaining in the long run and they can also be a way to enhance the movie experience. If I happen to see a film I really enjoy and want more details, I will often be inspired to read the book afterward. Since the book is usually better the "movie first book second" approach provides less chance for disappointment or continual comparison to the book.

I really don't know. But I'm pretty sure people say "Oh, the book was way better" just to sound smarter. I know I do.

I'm leery of both books made into movies and movies made into books...

For me..usually movies...for gangster movie fans,I thought Johnny Depp was great as John Dillinger...but the book(Public Enemies) easily rubs out the movie.

In my opinion, I think a book has a lot more information and detail than any movie ever had.

I don't read books because I have a really short attention span. It's short when it comes to movies too but I'd definitely rather watch than read. It's a visual thing.

So far I haven't seen a single movie that was better than the book it was based on. Exceptions may exist, but I haven't seen one yet.

Eh, no real preference but I do have a rule regarding this. I don't pick which I enjoy first...but, if I read the book, I won't watch the movie and vice versa. I don't know, it just seems I expect something specific of the second, based on the first, and it usually disappoints.

Usually the book wins. . .but there are exceptions to the rule. ("Last of the Mohicans" - dull as sin to read, beautiful watching those gorgeous people running through Michael Mann's film)

This discussion has led to funny exchanges. When Mel Gibson was speaking to a producer on the phone about making his film version of "Hamlet" the producer asked a telling question-

"Can I see the script?"

Usually prefer books, but some movies are good too.

I think a movie would get the call here, because they are a little more exciting and dramatic, and you can see it happening right in front of you, but books are good, too, and you can still visualize it in your head.

Two billy goats are having their lunch at the land fill, feasting on food scraps and garbage alike. They eat everything, chicken bones, plastic, apple cores, a spool of old Super 8 film, leftover meat loaf, a Jackie Collins paperback, some spoiled yogurt.

After lunch the first goat says "So what did you think of that film?"

The second goat say says, "I liked the book better."

With rare exception- like Gone With the Wind- I prefer books to movies. As git said in a review a while back, we have become too dependent on the big screen to do our thinking for us.