The age-old question, books or movies?

Now, many people think it's so intellectual to go on about how "you can imagine what the characters look like in a book" or "you can interpret it yourself", etc. These people think they're so much cleverer because they refuse to watch Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter because they can't bare to imagine it any differently and how the book is changed for the general, stupid viewing audience. They may bring themselves to watch such a film and comment how "this scene has changed" or "oh, Ron was never like that in the book!". Someone like *** is going to come up with these points, about how clever books are.

I hate these people.

I could say these same points - I could go on about how much more clever books are than movies, how you have to be stupid to enjoy the film adaptation of Harry Potter over the books. To be honest, it's so much easier to sit in a dark room and just watch a movie. It's got real, tangible people, right in front of you, acting out the director's interpretation. I don't see how this is any worse than reading a book, what matters are the general stories that are told and it doesn't matter which format it's in.

That said, I vote movies.

movies. books are nice and all, but I have a shit imagination, and I enjoy visuals. picture books are nice. especually the ones that pop up and shit.

Books .

would take a good book over a movie any day

Quote from Nixon

The age-old question, books or movies?
Books.
Now, many people think it's so intellectual to go on about how "you can imagine what the characters look like in a book" or "you can interpret it yourself", etc.
Well, those are actually good points. In a book you create everything you need, imagination has no limits, but the money spent on a movie does.
These people think they're so much cleverer because they refuse to watch Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter because they can't bare to imagine it any differently and how the book is changed for the general, stupid viewing audience.
Some might, but I certainly don't. Why base views of intellect on how somebody likes their stories told?
They may bring themselves to watch such a film and comment how "this scene has changed" or "oh, Ron was never like that in the book!". Someone like *** is going to come up with these points, about how clever books are.
Yes, because some books are amazing and the movies made of them make them look bad. If you like a song, which not everybody has heard, you think this song is the best song ever made, then some faggot does a cover on it and it's horrible, but it hits number 1 in the charts, I'm sure you'd be pretty annoyed.

I hate these people.
That's not a very nice thing to say.

I could say these same points - I could go on about how much more clever books are than movies, how you have to be stupid to enjoy the film adaptation of Harry Potter over the books.
Not at all. Afterall, books are literally spelled out to you, movies usually have things from the book hidden in them. Books just create the stories so much better than movies ever can.
To be honest, it's so much easier to sit in a dark room and just watch a movie.
For some.
It's got real, tangible people, right in front of you, acting out the director's interpretation.Those people are as real as the ones in the book.
I don't see how this is any worse than reading a book, what matters are the general stories that are told and it doesn't matter which format it's in.
A point well made. Although the story is there, sometimes some of the things that made the story great aren't. Maybe the ones who read the book aren't being selfish, perhaps they want people to enjoy it the same way they did.
That said, I vote movies.

I replied to that because it seemed you were attacking everybody who have preferred books to the movies. Not everybody who does enjoy books to movies feel that anybody who doesn't do the same is stupid.

I like both, since they're both different artistic mediums, even if the story of a book is used in a movie.

With that said, I won't vote since I like both.

Movies are better if you want to be entertained quickly and efficiently, but books stay with you much longer and leave you more content. It's like a piece of paper vs a block of wood; which gives off more heat?

Quote from LakE

I replied to that because it seemed you were attacking everybody who have preferred books to the movies. Not everybody who does enjoy books to movies feel that anybody who doesn't do the same is stupid.

It wasn't aimed at people who prefer books, it's aimed at people who are so high and mighty about preferring books.

i find it hard to read books that i dont like, but if i like a book i prefer it to a movie

You can't watch a film on the toilet. Books get the vote. [SIZE="1"]Accepting cases where you have a really cool house of course[/SIZE].

Quote from Nixon

The age-old question, books or movies?

Now, many people think it's so intellectual to go on about how "you can imagine what the characters look like in a book" or "you can interpret it yourself", etc. These people think they're so much cleverer because they refuse to watch Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter because they can't bare to imagine it any differently and how the book is changed for the general, stupid viewing audience. They may bring themselves to watch such a film and comment how "this scene has changed" or "oh, Ron was never like that in the book!". Someone like *** is going to come up with these points, about how clever books are.

I hate these people.

I could say these same points - I could go on about how much more clever books are than movies, how you have to be stupid to enjoy the film adaptation of Harry Potter over the books. To be honest, it's so much easier to sit in a dark room and just watch a movie. It's got real, tangible people, right in front of you, acting out the director's interpretation. I don't see how this is any worse than reading a book, what matters are the general stories that are told and it doesn't matter which format it's in.

That said, I vote movies.

Those aren't the reasons that mature readers of literature usually give, those are what anti-social nitpicking bookworms like to say.


I prefer books in some cases, movies in others. If I want drama or action, I'll watch a movie. There are things that film can show that just doesn't work in a book.

If I want to learn, I'll go for a good intelligent novel, books like Ender's Game, Contact, or Jurassic Park. In the latter's case, the book is superior to the film in my opinion because it did the unexpected and spent more time discussing chaos theory than paleontology or biology, and it does it in a way that was accessible to me even when I was only in third grade.

I recently read a book entitled The Lovely Bones, and that is a book that looks like it will function perfectly fine as a movie as well, as is evidenced by the recent trailer for Peter Jackson's adaptation of the novel.

Still, movies have a tendency to pull me in more. When I read, I feel like I'm being told a story. When I watch a movie, I feel like I am watching the story unfold (Which, of course, I am, but I mean this in a more personal way)

Movies like The Shawshank Redemption pull me in so deeply that the end of the film is like awakening from a dream: I am suddenly in a completely different reality from the one I was in while watching the film. The same thing happened today when I watched Monster's Ball. I was told to watch the film not having learned anything about the plot, so as it unfolded I was completely engrossed, and didn't realize how much time had passed before it was over.

Both mediums have their strengths and their weaknesses. No adaptation of I AM Legend has been successful at evoking the same story and atmosphere as the novella because narration is so clunky a method of seeing inside a character's head. Sure, it's possible through good acting and direction to portray the thoughts of a character effectively. In Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, when Sam and Frodo are eating some Lembas bread on the trecherous journey to Mordor, and Sam says that he is trying to ration it. Frodo asks what for, and Sam replies "The journey home". The look that Elijah Wood gives in response said more than words could possible have said. Frodo knew that it was unlikely that they would survive to even have a journey home, but it pained him to tell his friend this. This was done badly in the earlier animated adaptation, in which Frodo threw a great fit over it.

I voted movies, though, simply because we have gotten so good at making film that anything that can be described in a book can be shown on screen.

It usually depends on the movie/book. It's fun to do both, but I prefer to read the book before I watch the movie.

I've got too low of an attention span to read intentionally. I only read when I have to.

Either or it doesn't matter to me.