Books are better than movies because you design the set the way you want it to look.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Books provide context and allow you to think about things over time. Film is like writing haiku; there is an immense amount of pleasure in paring down and paring down. But it isn't the same.
Books are a little better movies than just screenplays because there's more fat on the bone. There's more character development. There's more stuff to pick from.
I'm always interested to see what films are made of books. I kind of don't participate as a filmgoer in any kind of debate about what's better, the book or the movie. So I think it's interesting when people want to do it.
Films are always different from books.
Books are my art. The movie is someone else's art. But it's great marketing for books.
There is a sort of theory that you should adapt bad books because they always make more successful films.
There's no point in making a film out of a great book. The book's already great. What's the point?
A lot of books, if you take them at face value, they're just not gonna work as films.
The problem with making movies is that you have to devote so much of your life to fawning and flattering the men in suits, whereas that doesn't happen in books. You just go and write, and then the book comes out.
You see, the interesting thing about books, as opposed, say, to films, is that it's always just one person encountering the book, it's not an audience, it's one to one.
No opposing quotes found.