I was just wondering about the the advantages and disadvantages of reading books or watching movies. I'm not only talking about books that are made into movies but also just in general. Would you rather spent your time reading or watching movies
I really like watching movies, but actually reading a book is at least as good as that. I think you get even more into a story reading a novel than watching a movie, and I'm often dissappointed of movies made out of books because some of the best and funniest scenes are almost always missing!
I like both. Sometimes I prefer lying on the coach and watch a tv show or a movie and sometimes I enjoy lying on the coach with a book. Both are extremly enjoyable.
I don't know why people enjoy more tv, reading is fun.
Well I like both, what I don't like are people who see the movie, don't read the book and tell me they no everything about it, when I try to tell them the parts that were cut from the movie...well you get it.
Nothing compares to imagination, so if I have to choose I go with a good book.
However, as mentioned before, movies are better for lazy moments.
Well It depends , Both reading Books and watching movies have got there advantages and disadvantages. For example a Story book is too thorough and if a movie is based on it. then its just kind of its summary. If we look at Harry potter then the stories and really interesting and have alot of happenings but in the movie its really been cut short but movies does make it possible to watch your favourite characters out of the stories on the screen
The topic that is books V movies is very complex. It really depends on how the movie is made.
Books aren't just text on a page, when you get hooked by a great read, you could picture as much action a movie, if not better because movies have restrictions in terms of budget.
I tend to think, that you get a bit of a sour taste in your mouth when you watch a movie from a book you really enjoyed. The movie generally doesn't rate, and it is really too hard to make it rate. Consider the Harry Potter series, a Harry Potter movie tries to stick a year's worth of action into a 2 hour film, so obviously many parts which make the book up and not included. I think there are many parts that make up a book, like descriptions of normal life, where in a movie all the 'normal life' parts have to be cut out, so you get action, action, action which, I think the audience needs a break.
My question is, what order should you have?
-Book then movie
-Movie then book
My roommate and I have a rule that you can't see a movie based on a book without reading the book first...just to avoid becoming "one of those people". This is something we don't stick to religiously, but I do think it's a good rule. I find that frequently the books are better than their movie counterparts, although this is not always the case. If I loved the book, usually the movie is satisfying as a follow up, even if it's not very good.
I can't enjoy a great movie any more than I can enjoy a great book. I can enjoy them at least equally well, but not one more than the other. That said, a great book usually lasts much longer than a great movie--books can take me days, weeks, or months to read. So, I would prefer the book to the movie if it comes down to it, just because I get maximum enjoyment for a longer period of time. Movies are a good form of instant gratification, but don't last nearly as long.
That is a hard question. But considering that movies most often are a disappointment after you read the book, you actually should watch the movie first, ... But then you already got the image of landscape and characters and can't imagine it yourself anymore, ...
Actually it is stupid to watch/read the same story again if you already know it!? What ever
It isn't totally stupid to watch a movie when you've already read the book--movies offer a different perspective on books.
I think people spend too much time publicly obsessing over certain movie/book combinations, and hollywood spends too much time pandering to the public's stupid, frivilous desires...but some movies are worth seeing, even when you've read its counterpart. And it's all entertainment, so the line between "interesting" and "complete waste of time" is fuzzy.
I like to read the book first before I watch it's movie version (if any) just to see if they really give justice to the story. But i'm not quiet a ready to I just let audio books to tell the story for me. It's kind a bit tiring to my eyes to read knowing that i already have my eyes in the computer screen all day trying to create a program.
But i'll go with books. although I like both books and movies, books makes my imagination more active than just sitting there watching movies.
Don't take my comments too seriously. I actually like watching the movie they made out of a book I know, and a really good movie gets my attention and I'll read the book. ( I only read The Lord of the Rings after it was all over the cinemas, and I love both - books and movies )
This was a hard choice to make. I chose movies purely because I can get through I lot more of those in one day.
However I love the extra dimensions in books, the sights, smells and tsates experienced by a character that cannot be shown in a mere movie - plus by the time a story has been through as many hands as it has to in a typical movie it is a fairly diluted and warped version we see on screen.
Books are a much more emotinal and personal experience than movies and I have fallen for the herion of a book much more than I have any character in a movie no matter who played her and no my books don't all have pictures in them!
I have rarely been as afraid reading a book as I have watching a horror or thriller movie.
I think the most intense experience I hav had from a book that approached the anxiety felt watching a movie with its music and sound effects was in Gerald's game by Stephen King, the part where the main character is attempting to reach and drink from a glass of water using s straw - i found myself so hooked that I began reading to fast ans I had to slow doen, leaf back a page or two and read it moe calmly - I was beigining to lose track of what was going on.
In my own oppinion, I think books are much better than movies. We should use the Harry Potter series for example. The first two movies of the said noble was good, but when they released the third, the fans went crazy and said that the movie was bad. I haven't read the POA(Prisoner of Azkaban) back then so I think think that these people are just making assumptions. But when I read POA, I think to myself, I guess they are true.
Even though I'm too late to read the book, I still liked it because there are some chapters there that are erased in the movie and some of those chapters are crucial for viewers to understand the story.
P.S. : I'm a newbie here and I hope that I'm not breaking any rule.
For me it all depends.
I like sum books because the fun and exitement lasts longer. So I rather read when I kno that I will have nothing to do for a long period.
Movies are nicer because it is audiovisual and the climax of the movies have a bigger effect since there is alot of sound to accompany that.
If i have to read and watch a story, i rather read it first THEN I WATCH THE MOVIE AND SEE HOW OTHER PEOPLES IMAGINATION DIFFERS FROM MINE. Thats cool to see.
I think that for me the issue is more than a matter of whimsical preference. Watching a movie is mentally restful, or atleast that is what I use movies for. If I want something involved, complex, and nuanced, I'll read a book. If I am exhausted from a long day of study, I will watch a movie: a comedy more specifically. There are light-hearted, easily understood books, and there are dark, deep, thought-provoking movies, but that does not mean I will ever intentially experience either one of them. Books are my saturday morning ready to make something out of my free time kind of thing. Movies are my late night "wow I just thoroughly analyzed every step of the Oxidation reduction pathway in the common organism" type feeling. It depends - Roughit
I've done the exact same thing with King novels! He is a MASTERFUL story-teller in that regard. I remember reading "IT" at my cottage alone, late at night (way up north, in the woods, not a soul around!). I thought I was going to have a heart attack. No movie has EVER made me that scared.
Books are for the imagination--your mind puts the pictures around the words. Movies are for the sensory experience--someone else puts the pictures together for you, and you receive and respond to them. Not better, not worse. Just different.
I don't really prefer one or the other, if they're executed well. Books are usually better than the movies, in that, nothing is cut out, and usually there's more depth and feeling. In a movie, everything's visual and auditory, so you have to have an open mind and watch it several times to get everything you would if you read the book once. Not saying that movies are bad, but you wouldn't want to rewind every few seconds, while going back to read a sentence over isn't too hard.
I really like both, but most things are better as books than as movies. Therefore, my favorite movies aren't the ones based on books, because after I've read the books I can't really appreciate the movies.
Even really good movies such as Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, and so on don't really capture the full scope of the books. Especially not when so much of the details that made the books so remarkable have been cut out to save time. This happens with Harry Potter - while not known as humorous books, there's all these little jokes and jests that the characters make. The movies cut most of that out, and it makes them less enjoyable than the books.
I think watching moving pictures is less engaging than watching still pages .
By 'engaging' I mean the amount of grey matter involved in the process. I'm not saying that movies are for 'intellectually challenged' but are certainly deeply sedimented into visual dominant that governs contemporary pop/nonpop culture, methinks. The complexity of visual stimuli  notwithstanding, reading provides somewhat 'new' way of stimulation that paradoxically is older than moving pictures, lol.
On the other hand if one thinks about theatre as a predecessor of TV, cinema etc., well, its even older.
What I wanted to say in this meandering and somewhat short txt is that I prefer reading to watching because I'm used too much to pictures, HOWGH.
I think so, too. You can just see and hear with a movie, and even that can be far worse than your imagination.
Also, movies are expensive to make and need a bigger audience, so it changes.
More action, more kitsch, less emotions and a less minimum mind level needed
I hate people who sit up on a pedestal and say "the book was BETTER."
I like to read, i love books, but I like movies better. the movie gives you a perspective of something in a way you wouldn't have thought of it on your own. a book gives you the words and the descriptions, but how you interperet them is entirely personal. a movie comes from someone elses imagination, it takes you to a place you haven't been, in a way you couldn't imagine. movies can literally put you in a different perspective of the same story the book did. it's very cool to read a book and watch the same movie, because it's two different tellings of the same story. Movies are a group activity, while books require one reader, and though he can read aloud, the experience is not quite the same for listeners.
well movie it's one way how to view a book(through eyes of producer)... so if you want to have your own opinion - better to read book at first and then watch movie...
This is obvious discrimination. Movie is not a way to view a book. There are tons of films that have original scripts. But the topic is book vs movie...ok. The main difference between book and movie is the medium they are instatiated (obviously). I think this particular feature makes all the difference. Its extremely difficult to compare books and movies even when one treats them both like texts. Anyway...
All you have said can refer to book and movie simultaneously. Your interpretation of the movie may be totally personal like the with a book. There are books that does not leave you much space for interpretation - one of my examples is Suskind's Perfume. And example of the movie that is open to personal interpretation would be - Tarkovsky's The Mirror. Watching this requires using one's reserves of intuition. And BTW some authors write books in coopoeration with others. And if you want to play some if the intertextual game, read The House of Leaves by Mark Danielewski. It nicely comments on mediation and shifts of perspective.
Anybody seen Blade Runner and read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by PhilipK Dick? Comparing both is hm.....
I really like both, and it depends on what kind of story it is if it is told better by a book or a movie.
Well, probably movies, because you imagine it way different in the book and when the best part comes and you want BADLY to see it..
I couldn't agree more.
After watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire on DVD, I can quite frankly say I was thouroughly disappointed. I loved the book - And the movie was but a mere shadow of it (Although still good - in a sense).
If a director puts enough effort into making a movie, i.e. Pirates of the Carribean and Lord of the Rings, then they can be absoloutely spectacular.
Otherwise, we end up (sadly) with another Eragon, Davinci Code or Harry potter-like movie
I loved the start of Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire, the book, but when I saw the movie, it was just kinda crap...I hope Order of Phoenix isn't like this, because I love the book
Most a times i prefer books for movies. In movies, our imagination is limited to the visuals shot. Books offers you unlimited imagination for what you're reading.
This is the same reason people say there isn't enough magic in HP movies.
PS1: I haven't read any HP book yet, but seen all movies.
PS2: I'm a hard core movie fan as well as a book worm
Books are amazing to read, but movies can be amazing to watch. Commercial literature is the same as commercial cinema--entertaining, but lacking in depth. Literary fiction and artistic cinema, however, are both of equal creative merit and can be enjoyed on the same philosophical/contemplative/entertainment level, I think.
If, however, you mean book to movie conversions, or vice versa, I prefer whichever came first, that has more depth.
Yeah, no good can come from a book based on a movie. If it was the movie that came first, I can only say that I would never read the book that followed.
I prefer books because for one there is more depth and detail. Authors can also do more than directors can, the books are lighter, and take little power (Adding in the power used for the lights). Plus, I can read them in class or other places where movies would be impractical.
I prefer to watch movies rather then read books. I guess I belong to the minority now in this poll... I'm just too lazy to read all those books (or even one book). It's just better to watch some 2 hours movie and you get the general picture of what the book is all about. And of course movies have more action, it works better for someone with low level of imagination, cause reading books takes a lot of imagination...
I voted for books. I don't read many books because I have school and when I have free time I work on my projects. Both movies and books are great.
Some movies often change the story and after you read the book and you watch the movie it somehow dissapoints you.
I have to say depends on the book/ film. For example, Wuthering Heights, book would win easy.
However, Harry Potter, film would win easy.