Movies vs Books

[stuie299]

No I'm not talking about book to movie adaptations. I'm sure that topic has been discussed to death. My question is if you take a good original movie vs a good original book what would make a person like one over the other? Personally I don't read books that often. I tend to be a slow reader and find it to be more of a chore to read a book even if I'm enjoying it. For me watching certain movie scenes gives me a lot greater satisfaction. For example the scene from Eternal Sunshine where Kirsten Dunst is reading the quote and then it cuts to Jim and Kate at the parade. To me everything about that scene is perfect. I think music is one of the main reasons why I've never been able to get the same pleasure from a book. As I also spend a lot of time listening to music. So I'm obviously terribly biased. I guess the major appeal of books over movies is the use of ones imagination. I'm sure that's an over simplification, but as someone who much prefers movies I don't really understand why someone would choose to read a good book vs watch a good movie?

[TheDenizen]

It's hard to explain why I love to read so much...try explaining why you love movies so much to a guy who doesn't really care about movies.

I don't speed read but I can read pretty fast, so I rarely get bogged down by a slow moving book. I think the main difference is in the level of detail. A movie scene might be meticulously crafted (for example Kubrick was notorious for being a perfectionist about everything visible in the shot) with tons of small details, but rarely does the camera linger for longer than it takes to deliver the required dialog. An astute observer might pick up on significant but subtle props/actions/etc but in a book, the writer can go on at great length describing a scene before the characters ever open their mouths. It gives a layer of depth allowing the reader to mentally conjure up a world just as vivid as an actual film image. Opportunities to flex your imagination muscles in the modern world are few and far between, but reading a book relies on them.

Certain authors also have an innate ability to turn a wonderful phrase. I love the English language and all its quirks and idiosyncrasies, and I have a strong appreciation for clever prose or wordplay. You rarely see that in movies, from the last 50 years or so, anyways.

And I totally hear appropriate mood music in my head when I'm reading, so lack of music isn't an issue.

[ShogunRua]

My question is if you take a good original movie vs a good original book what would make a person like one over the other? Personally I don't read books that often. I tend to be a slow reader and find it to be more of a chore to read a book even if I'm enjoying it. For me watching certain movie scenes gives me a lot greater satisfaction. For example the scene from Eternal Sunshine where Kirsten Dunst is reading the quote and then it cuts to Jim and Kate at the parade. To me everything about that scene is perfect. I think music is one of the main reasons why I've never been able to get the same pleasure from a book. As I also spend a lot of time listening to music. So I'm obviously terribly biased. I guess the major appeal of books over movies is the use of ones imagination. I'm sure that's an over simplification, but as someone who much prefers movies I don't really understand why someone would choose to read a good book vs watch a good movie?

You're someone who praises braindead superhero films for 8 year-olds as high art. Is it any wonder you don't read and in fact, don't even understand the appeal? Sadly, this is a common attitude nowadays. People are increasingly less educated and more infantile than past generations were. As one of the side-effects, they don't like books.

What are the appeals of reading? Frankly, the medium is superior to movies.

1. Books are the most intellectual of medium, since you can convey more complex and interesting ideas through the written word than you can solely through images. Argue with this all you like, but there's a reason complex mathematical theorems are written down in symbols, not in photo images. (Unless those images have writing on them!)

The most intelligent films I have ever seen ("Wild Strawberries", "Network") have the same level of intellectual content to them as a good book, but still much less than a great novel.

2. Books, if you read quickly, are both faster-paced and more exciting than virtually any movie.

If you read at a rate of 2 pages per minute (reasonable, not even especially fast), that's 240 pages in 2 hours. Most 2-hour films have a 110-page script with relatively few words on each page.

You can simply devour way more content in the same period of time.

Really, the main issue is that you're a slow reader who doesn't read much. Of course you're not going to like it at that level; it takes practice and a certain level to enjoy.

Imagine a grossly overweight fat man with high cholesterol who gets winded going up a flight of stairs. He probably doesn't "understand the appeal of exercise".

[3dRevelation]

In my personal experience, I credit reading with really helping to increase my intelligence. I used to be a stupid kid in elementary school, and then I read Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings in middle school where there became an obvious improvement in my educational progress (and I'm pretty sure there is a correlation between reading and intelligence). I think that is one of the best things a parent can do to help their children: encourage them to read or read to them. LOTR was probably the first major book I read, and it really got me interested in reading. Now I doubt I've read the huge quantity of books that others have, but I like to read in my leisure time. I don't read as much as should now though (I blame college and having to read textbooks).

I'm sure others do this too, but I paint pictures as I'm reading. Reading allows you to imagine how you think the scene is staged, whereas in film it's simply just looking at the screen. I love film, but it doesn't (for the most part) allow one to use one's imagination. I would say there's just more of a visceral quality to literature, whereas film tends to be more superficial. And I think that is why many people enjoy film more than books, because not much is left to the imagination. Edit: In other words pretty much the same thing TheDenizen said.

I may be also weird when I read, because I often picture characters in the books I read as real life people instead of fictional characters. For example, when I read Steinbeck's East of Eden (which I would probably call my favorite novel I've read), I pictured the main character of Adam Trask as Gregory Peck haha. I think this comes from some kind of odd correlation I made between Peck and the character, having read To Kill a Mockingbird and seeing the film and picturing Gregory Peck as Atticus and Adam Trask as very similar father figures.

I probably should get to my pile of books soon though, as I start school in mere weeks, at which point I'll probably have to read textbooks and a bunch of scientific papers, which will sap my will to read for leisure.

Edit 2: To help make a point about the visualization that is more inherent in books over film: One of the reasons Steinbeck is my favorite author is because of how descriptive and intriguing his writing it. I mean I don't think the opening of a film can even really compare with the opening of Cannery Row (not my favorite of his works, but not bad):

Cannery Row in Monterey in California is a poem, a stink, a grating noise, a quality of light, a tone, a habit, a nostalgia, a dream. Cannery Row is the gathered and scattered, tin and iron and rust and splintered wood, chipped pavement and weedy lots and junk heaps, sardine canneries of corrugated iron, honky tonks, restaurants and whore houses, and little crowded groceries, and laboratories and flophouses. Its inhabitants are, as the man once said, 'whores, pimps, gamblers and sons of bitches,' by which he meant Everybody. Had the man looked through another peephole he might have said, 'Saints and angels and martyrs and holy men,' and he would have meant the same thing.

[stuie299]

You're someone who praises braindead superhero films for 8 year-olds as high art. Is it any wonder you don't read and in fact, don't even understand the appeal?

I have a hard time accepting anything else you say in this thread because you start off by throwing a vague attack at me. I mean if you're gonna call me out at least be more specific about it. BTW I am open to reading. I just noticed that I spend more of my time watching movies and listening to music instead of reading. I mean if I wasn't open to reading I wouldn't be trying to understand the appeal of it.

[ShogunRua]

Steinbeck

Steinbeck was my absolute favorite writer when I was in my teens, and is still one of my favorites to this day. "The Pearl" is probably the best work of his that I have read.

You're someone who praises braindead superhero films for 8 year-olds as high art. Is it any wonder you don't read and in fact, don't even understand the appeal?

I have a hard time accepting anything else you say in this thread because you start off by throwing a vague attack at me. I mean if you're gonna call me out at least be more specific about it. BTW I am open to reading. I just noticed that I spend more of my time watching movies and listening to music instead of reading. I mean if I wasn't open to reading I wouldn't be trying to understand the appeal of it.

See, this is another reason you should improve your reading ability. Had you read my entire post, you would have gathered a very different impression than you did from reading the (intentionally) provocative first couple of lines.

"Not understanding the appeal of reading" and "not being good at reading" is not a matter of taste or personal choice.

It's as insane as saying "I don't understand the appeal of exercise and eating healthy; I would rather eat McDonald's and not ever do any exercise". The only difference is that one is physical, while the other is mental. People readily recognize the former, but not the latter.

[3dRevelation]

Steinbeck was my absolute favorite writer when I was in my teens, and is still one of my favorites to this day. "The Pearl" is probably the best work of his that I have read.

I'll have to add that one to my list. I've certainly heard of it, but I guess never seemed interested. Although having just reread a synopsis, it sounds like something I'd enjoy. As far as Steinbeck goes, I've read East of Eden, The Grapes of Wrath, Cannery Row, The Moon is Down, Of Mice and Men, and I'm currently in the process of reading In Dubious Battle. I also have The Winter of Our Discontent on a shelf somewhere.

I think his son actually wrote a book a few years ago, but I'm leery because I doubt it'll live up to his father's work.

[ShogunRua]

Steinbeck was my absolute favorite writer when I was in my teens, and is still one of my favorites to this day. "The Pearl" is probably the best work of his that I have read.

I'll have to add that one to my list. I've certainly heard of it, but I guess never seemed interested. Although having just reread a synopsis, it sounds like something I'd enjoy. As far as Steinbeck goes, I've read East of Eden, The Grapes of Wrath, Cannery Row, The Moon is Down, Of Mice and Men, and I'm currently in the process of reading In Dubious Battle. I also have The Winter of Our Discontent on a shelf somewhere.

I actually haven't read either "East of Eden" or "The Moon is Down".

Let's see; I have finished The Pearl, Cannery Row, Of Mice and Men, The Grapes of Wrath, In Dubious Battle, The Winter of our Discontent, The Cup of Gold (surprisingly underrated first novel), Tortilla Flat, The Red Pony, and The Long Valley (Steinbeck's short stories are excellent, too).

I have also read part of "Pastures of Heaven" and "Sweet Thursday", but for reasons largely unrelated to quality, didn't finish either.

Amusingly enough, the two weakest books by far have been "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Of Mice and Men". At the same time, I perfectly understand why they are his two most famous works. Still, by his standards, they absolutely suck.

I think you will probably like "In Dubious Battle"; it's a vastly better version of many of the ideas "Grapes of Wrath". (Yes, I know he the wrote the former directly after the latter)

[Pickpocket]

You're someone who praises braindead superhero films for 8 year-olds as high art. Is it any wonder you don't read and in fact, don't even understand the appeal?

I have a hard time accepting anything else you say in this thread because you start off by throwing a vague attack at me. I mean if you're gonna call me out at least be more specific about it. BTW I am open to reading. I just noticed that I spend more of my time watching movies and listening to music instead of reading. I mean if I wasn't open to reading I wouldn't be trying to understand the appeal of it.

If you liked reading, you would realize that it wasn't a vague attack at all!

I have also read part of "Pastures of Heaven"

It's worth finishing

[stuie299]

You're someone who praises braindead superhero films for 8 year-olds as high art. Is it any wonder you don't read and in fact, don't even understand the appeal?

I have a hard time accepting anything else you say in this thread because you start off by throwing a vague attack at me. I mean if you're gonna call me out at least be more specific about it. BTW I am open to reading. I just noticed that I spend more of my time watching movies and listening to music instead of reading. I mean if I wasn't open to reading I wouldn't be trying to understand the appeal of it.

See, this is another reason you should improve your reading ability. Had you read my entire post, you would have gathered a very different impression than you did from reading the (intentionally) provocative first couple of lines.

"Not understanding the appeal of reading" and "not being good at reading" is not a matter of taste or personal choice.

It's as insane as saying "I don't understand the appeal of exercise and eating healthy; I would rather eat McDonald's and not ever do any exercise". The only difference is that one is physical, while the other is mental. People readily recognize the former, but not the latter.

I did read the entire post. Maybe you should just stop being such a pompous ass. Seriously what was the point of that initial attack? But what should I expect your last point is just as pretentious and short sighted. I'm trying to grow and not be like that but you just can except that some people aren't naturally drawn towards literature.

If you liked reading, you would realize that it wasn't a vague attack at all!

But it was vague because it didn't mention a specific film that related to me, which meant he had to be stereotyping/generalizing.