this thread is spawning from an offtopic discussion in a recent general discussion thread.

 

 

 

one side of the argument is that movies are more entertaining/more important to society than books, the other being the opposite.

 

 

 

it's my belief that both offer great importance and learning outside of our own experiences. i think that neither can be deemed better than the other in the fact that books are the movies of the 1800's and earlier. and that to break into the great minds of the past we must read their work just as we can watch the movies of today to gain insight into the great minds of now.

 

 

 

personally i enjoy reading a good book more than i like watching a good movie, but that might just be the length of time that can be spent digesting a really good novel (i really do suggest war and peace to anyone despite its length, tolstoy is incredible)

 

 

 

i guess i just wanted some other opinions on the topic, including which one you think is more important, or both, and why and which one you prefer

 

 

 

sorry if this belongs in music, movies, and television. is so please move since it included books and didnt seem to fit in the sticky guidelines there i decided on the more general board.

I think you're in the right section. Not positive though.

 

 

 

Though, I have to say, books are probably on average better than movies. Movies are 90% in it for the profit. Books, while also wanting profit, can dedicate more time and pages for their book for minimal cost to them and allowing them more money by including more information.

Erm,may I direct you to the your favorite books/series thread?

 

 

 

Myself I enjoy a good spell scroll for my spell book...

1984 is among my favorite books. Very disturbing :twisted: Everyone's read Harry Potter.

 

 

 

Edit: Oops, I didn't realize there was another thread.

1984 is among my favorite books. Very disturbing :twisted: Everyone's read Harry Potter.

 

 

 

But not everyone's liked that ending.I mean God there's nothing more cliche than that one...

 

 

 

[hide=Spoiler]Harry somehow severes (He does that right?) the link between him and Voldy,and kills him with a frikking disarm spell...[/hide]

I like movies but I also enjoy reading a book. When i'm in school i'm usually in the library every morning and I always carry a book around on me. (and I don't mean a manga, I mean a 200-600 page book.)

Given that the other thread is just a discussion about favourite books and this is more the relative importance compared to films, I think this okay to stay open here.

 

 

 

Personally, I'd always say books were a greater invention and gift to society than films. FIlms entertain and can educate, but books are incredibly powerful tools for education, for inspiration and for entertainment.

Given that the other thread is just a discussion about favourite books and this is more the relative importance compared to films, I think this okay to stay open here.

 

 

 

Personally, I'd always say books were a greater invention and gift to society than films. FIlms entertain and can educate, but books are incredibly powerful tools for education, for inspiration and for entertainment.

 

I agree. In my opinion, books and movies can not be compared. You got the 2 hour movie which follows typical melodrama stuff and then you can have a book which makes you feel intimate with the characters, see the characters evolve. Usually I find in movies the producer just puts a whole bunch of gimmicky stuff that people like to watch (Comedy or/and action films). Not to say I do not like comedy or action movies, but I usually only end up watching them once for a reason.

 

 

 

But with books, speaking from a story to story sense, you feel like you actually know the character. And for instructional purposes, some people say they gain information better from videos then from written instructions or vise versa, so for that there is no real point to discuss and comes down to personal preferences as long as the same information is given.

 

 

 

I do not know how much of my post was complete rambling, and I probably did not make much sense at all, but I just feel that movies are a) gimmicky things to gain money B) to short to get to know the character, to see a raising conflict and to see the conflict solved. The few cases where a good movie is made though..

 

 

 

The Godfather comes to mind as a good movie (That was a adaption of a book might I add ;)) We have conflicting characters, Peripeteia, suspense, dramatic scenes etc etc. Which is probably why its rated #1 at imdb (Or contributing factors in my opinion)...

It depends on the story I think. If anyone has seen the movie 'crank' with Jason Stratham(sp?), you know that the movie would be a lousy book. It you be some stupid little thing thats not all that funny. For guys, if you are ever forced to watch a chick-flick (a real one mind, you can only do this once so chose wisely), get them to watch this movie. Our family has dubed it the chickflick for guys, since its still something of a love story at heart, but with all that humor that appeals generaly to most males.

 

 

 

Other examples would be badboys 1 and 2. They could make deccent books, but I think the movies would still be more entertaining (blame will smith).

 

 

 

I like both. Movies are great for action or when you don't have hours to read a story (I don't have many books that are short). Also, its easier to re-watch a movie than to re-read a book, and movies can be re watched many times. My family dose not rent, we buy, and have between 100 and 160 DVD's as a result. I also Have 6 shelves of novels in my room with each shelf being nearly 3ft wide I think. There are 14 such bookcases in another room (actualy teh library being balconey that circles the living room from above (its a victorian styale house), all full (though only about 3 are novels. Still the rest are full of other things).

chickflick for guys

 

Erm...[bleep]flick?

 

 

 

If we're talking about movie-book relations...Eragon was a decent book,but the movie was pretty I dunno...He's supposed to take frikking months to get to the South.No,it was just a day.Speaking of Eragon,anyone know when the last book's supposed to come out?

I think that books are better than movies by a lot. Books give more detail (because a book can be 5-50,000+ pages, a movie is usually 1-4 hours). Also, a book allows you to create everything in your mind. You make the characters look in your mind how you want them to, you make the scenes look how you want, and you get all the nice little details that help make the book.

 

 

 

Movies are also great, because they let you have the experience of reading the book in a fraction of the time, but at the expense of details and imagination. Seriously, my view of Hogwarts from the book (I only chose Harry Potter because it's so popular) and the one portrayed in the movie were two very, very different places.

 

 

 

Books are just more engrossing and interesting to me. I do enjoy watching movies based on books though. Especially in a series (Harry Potter, for example), because you can see things better in your mind as you read the book, because it's already been rendered for you. If I have to choose between a book and a movie, I'll generally choose the book. Although some movies are just must-sees (Animal House wouldn't be anywhere near as funny as a book...the Revenge of the Nerds series would have made a terrible book too...just as some examples).

books and movies are both equally great. but books based on movies or especially movies based on books are usually puke

Typically people hate movies and perfer books because they're compairing what sells in the cinema to complex books like War and Peace or something. Movies are damn expensive to make, and so the people making them will choose whatever sells the most. (Unneeded drama, horrible comedy, sex, etc). Not all books are god, and not all movies are crap neither.

 

 

 

Now, if we have two people both with an unlimitless amount of money and each of them is going to tell a story; one via a book and the other via a film. Both can be as long as they want (56 hour movie for all I care or 64000 page book) Depending on what the story is about, one side will be better to tell. Say a war story, with lots of battle, would be better situated in a film since the battles will be really visual. A story with emotional problems and such would be better in a book, where the author can reveal the characters' thoughs and feelings without them talking outloud like a madman in the movie.

 

It depends on the story and the quality of the creator. The only problem with movies now is that the producers will make things that sells because it takes too much to make, and a book doesn't nessesarily have to do that. And of course, other things would be better told through a song or a picture.

 

 

 

This is why I like plays/scripts...both movies and books in one. :D

when i was writing this i didnt mean movies like 'meet the spartans' i was thinking more along the lines of less gimmicky films. given the debate going on in the other thread i thought there would be more discussion from both sides on this, oh well.

Yea this kind of goes in my thread about books and things but it has a difference.

 

 

 

You have to be a good director to make sure a movie based on a book doesn't become an epic fail.

 

 

 

Lol at my use of that meme.

It depends. Sometimes, the movies are better. Other times, the books are better. Once in a while, the movies and books are just as good as each other.

 

The thing about movies based on books is that they normally leave a lot of things out. This is understandable though, almost all movies are less than four hours long, and even still, most people wouldn't want to sit in a movie theater for hours and hours. Thus, the directors have to cut it down, skip a lot of good parts that readers liked, maybe even skip some boring, yet crucial, parts. When this happens, the book tends to be better - But I guess there are exceptions. Also, movies sometimes deviate from the book...The Two Towers, anyone?

 

Books, on the other hand, have no limit...They can be as long as the author wishes, and many people wouldn't mind reading a thousand page book. (As long as it is good, that is)

 

However, because of this, books nearly always take much longer to finish. It took me ~2 months to finish the Lord of the Rings (Books), it takes me about 10 hours to watch the movies. I have only read the books a few times, but I've watched the movies...Like 20 times...

 

Movies are more helpful with visualization, sometimes books don't provide good descriptions. When you see it on the big screen though, you'll get the image in your head, and that's what you're going to picture it as. (Continuing the example of Lord of the Rings, I couldn't figure out what Helm's Deep really looked like until I watched the movies) And there's the matter of the soundtrack, that can really be important, and it's something that books can't have.

 

To sum it up, both are good. Movies can be more helpful with getting the story across, but I find it easier to get lost into books. I know I was focusing more on the matter of "book-made-into-movie", but in general, I like books a bit better. Nearly all the movies that I've liked are based of books.

i prefer books to movies, usually.

 

they take longer to finish, have more detail, and you can fill in some blanks on your own, movies don't let you do that.

I haven't read a book in 3 years. When I did read books I found them ti beawesome but eventually they just got really boring. Movies are way more entertaining. They give you a visual display so that you don't have to. Tey also provide sound and don't require you to bend your neck down for hours on end. Movies are the way to go

Which removes the fun of reading...When I read I can take a few months because I really visualise whats happening,and I want to get everything right.With movies you don't really get to do that.

 

 

 

Oh and I don;t read that slowly any more.I've been known to read 500+ page books in less than a day...

On the first day of the release of the last Harry Potter i got mine at 12:05 A.M. exactly and stayed up all night reading it. im a fast reader ;)

On the first day of the release of the last Harry Potter i got mine at 12:05 A.M. exactly and stayed up all night reading it. im a fast reader ;)

 

 

 

Yay by time zones I got mine like 5 minutes earlier than you.I spent the day reading it too,and was thoroughly disappointed at the end...I mean,wtf man!See hide above.

Yea the ending sucked

 

 

 

[hide=]The spell bouncing off Harry and Voldemort dieing was so predictable, I mean cmon! I really wanted them both to die.[/hide]

I wouldn't pass up the chance to write a script, for a film or a serial drama. That would be incredibly fun.

 

 

 

I find it easier to think of examples of bad movies than bad books, though there are bad appples in both forms. I think that movies are more easily corrupted by the money, and there are less writers and producers and directors focused on making a quality film than there are writers making a quality book. But then, films don't have to try that hard, since the moviegoing crowd is a lot larger than the book-reading one. Given the chance, though, film can do a lot and be just as good as paper. I've seen some really outstanding movies, and read some really outstanding books.

 

 

 

And whoever asked about Eragon, the third book will be released in September, and there will be a fourth now.

 

 

 

Also, the Eragon movie sucked balls.

Don't get me wrong - I love movies.. but I prefer a good book over a good movie any day. Books give you so much room for using your imagination whereas movies kind of spell it all out of you and make you watch someone elses' imagination at work. A good book always gets me really excited when I read it :P And there's always so much more detail in books than in movies.

On the first day of the release of the last Harry Potter i got mine at 12:05 A.M. exactly and stayed up all night reading it. im a fast reader ;)

 

 

 

Hehe, I did the same. Read it in about 8 hours, got so pissed off at the end that I almost tore the epilogue out of the damned book.

 

 

 

On topic, I am generally more impressed with books than with movies. As most movies are more built on mainstream success than anything else, their quality suffers, a trap into which books don't fall often. Some movies are amazing, but more often than not, trying for mainsteam appeal causes their quality to fall greatly.