Twilight- books or movie?

answers1:defentily the books..i saw the movie and it was good but i
like the book better 4 some reason..i thought it was more romatic..and
the movie was a lil diff like the part where edward n james
fought..tats not in the book..
answers2:Movie
answers3:28 Days Later = better.The creatures in I Am Legend looked
too fake. I did like the movie though. Will Smith is a good actor.BQ:
Zombieland.
answers4:28 days later
answers5:the books are way better
answers6:Most definitely the books.They changed the movie a lot. But,
then again, I don't think that they could've ever made a movie to fit
everyones imagination of it.Either way,the book is much better.-But I
still like watching the movie. (:...Show more
answers7:I think i am legend is better because it as will smith which
i a VERY deep and good actor and also that the movie has some sense of
a real placement of objects (storyline)
answers8:books. more detail than the movie and way less choppy.
answers9:the books are great to read but get old in some places. the
film is exquisite. the acting and actors and directing is amazing.
shame the current director quit. te new one has a lot to live up
to....film
answers10:books!
answers11:definitely the books.
answers12:I think I Am Legend is better than 28 Days Later. BUT I also
think that the sequel of 28 Days Later (28 Weeks Later) is better than
both of those movies.
answers13:Plastic-looking? What does that mean?If it means that the
blood/makeup isn't well done, then I disagree. The Saw installments
have amazing special effects, and I've never seen a more convinving
arm-snap-in-half scene.If it means that the movie is cliche, or fake,
then once again, I disagree. You're young, so maybe you don't grasp
the importance and symbolism of Jigsaw. He does what he does so that
he can help unappreciative people....Show more
answers14:Dr. Frankenstein
answers15:Man, I liked both movies so that's hard to answer, but I
would have to say 28 Days Later was better. Zombies aside, it felt
more real and it was very gritty. Noboby was perfect or had any fancy
labs or weapons. I could relate more to the characters in 28 Days
Later since they were just average people. I Am Legend is a great
story but it was a Hollywood movie with tons of special effects and
the hero had numerous resources and skills most average people would
never have.BQ-The Walking Dead tv series (not really a movie, but I
still like it)...Show more
answers16:The name of the scientist was Dr. Frankenstein. The title
Frankenstein doesn't refer to the monster, it refers to the scientist.
answers17:I am watching Saw IV as I write this (I am 14) and am I the
only one who thinks that this movie is the most plastic-looking movie
ever? Oh, and I am up to the part where they discover Karen
answers18:Actually, the scientist's name was Frankenstein. The monster
was referred to as "the creature".
answers19:Dr. Frankenstein. The monster doesn't have a name.
answers20:I liked the movie but I LOVED the books! I would definately
say the books!
answers21:the books
answers22:BQ- Favorite movie about 'survival?'
answers23:Victor Frankenstein
answers24:28 Days Later, but I'm not its biggest fan either... I
didn't like I Am Legend, and I also didn't like 28 Days Later too
much, but if I had to choose then 28 Days Later is better.BQ: Dawn of
the Dead (1978 and 2004, both are good imo.)
answers25:28 Days Later
answers26:thats an easy one, BOOKS definetly.movies are like never
better than the books and tiwlight is no exception.both are great but,
books are better.
answers27:Books, they have more detail in them and they do a better
job of explaining things. Plus, when you're reading the books, you can
see the characters your own way. Unlike in the movies where they pick
someone to be the character.
answers28:I mean like on the movies and stuff, duh.
answers29:It has to be Danny Boyle's film 28 Days Later. They are
both good films, however I just felt that 28 Days Later was a bit more
realistic. And the Zombies in I am Legend seemed a bit to over
computer generated.
answers30:both ;D
answers31:28 days later. No questionBq-28 days later. Its like a top
30 movie for me
answers32:Dr. Victor Frankenstein, and what he created was called "The
Frankenstein Monster"
answers33:Dr. Victor Frankenstein.People confuse this though, it is
Frankenstein's monster, not a monster named Frankenstein...
answers34:Victor Vaughn Frankenstein
answers35:In the movies, the scientist was Frankenstein, and the
creature he made was more often than not called simply the Creature or
the Monster.In the first Universal film (the 1931 classic), the
scientist was Dr Henry Frankenstein, rather than Victor Frankenstein,
as in Mary Shelley's book. He was played by Colin Clive The sequels
had his ancestors carrying on his work (with Basil Rathbone and Cedric
Hardwicke in the role, among others).In the later Hammer horror
Frankenstein series, the scientist became Baron (Victor) Frankenstein,
and he was played by Peter Cushing throughout most of the
series....Show more
answers36:I really liked the movie, but I like the book much better
because I think it seems more magical.
answers37:books!more detail. and the twilight movie sucks anyways. [:
answers38:the books definitely because everything is explained and
nothing is left out like in the movies where they edit scenes and
change so much that they never keep them true to the books
answers39:The BOOKS! They tell so much more than the movie.
answers40:they both could use some work
answers41:Hi. The scientist is actually named Frankenstein and not
the monster. I guess he was called "Frankenstein's monster" and that
probably got shortened to Frankenstein. For a really funny look at
the legacy of "Dr. Frankenstein" and his name, watch the movie "Young
Frankenstein". The comedian who played the monster in this movie,
Peter Boyle, passed away this week and will truly be missed.
answers42:books all the way
answers43:28 Days Later -- an original angle on this sci-fi kind of
survival epic (Best novel is THE STAND by Stephen King) -- (also great
is THE PASSAGE by Justin Cronin)