A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2016, 12:05 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
(05-10-2016 11:15 AM)Cumulus Wrote:  In short, Movies are easy, simple, and fun! Books are heavy, extensive, and require work mentally.

Therein lies the difference for me. I enjoy thinking. I like putting my mind to work and books allow me to put effort into visualizing the environment and figuring out what the characters sound like. They give me the time to really get into the world being presented. That's time well spent. I generally find movies boring because I don't have to think, everything is just thrown at me.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
05-10-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
Books have words which also can become memes.

Meme case dememed.

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
(05-10-2016 11:34 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  The LOTR movies were movies about the world JRR created, not a word-for-word translation to the screen.

I don't expect 100% fidelity to the book but I really liked the first one because it was true to the "spirit" of the book and told essentially the same story within the requirements of the medium.

In the second movie they made significant changes and that destroyed it for me. If they wanted to tell a different story within the middle-earth world that would be fine but that's not what the goal was. The goal was to translate the second book to the screen and if Jackson thought he could write better than Tolkien he should be writing unique material, not just making Tolkien's work unrecognizable. It was a hatchet job that had no business being made. I refused to watch the third one because he'd already gotten so far off the mark it was pointless to continue.

Not that I have any strong feelings about it.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
05-10-2016, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2016 12:21 PM by Chas.)
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
(05-10-2016 11:15 AM)Cumulus Wrote:  Here's my opinion. Feel free to roast me, critique me, or maybe even agree with me!! Thumbsup

Alright so think about it. The Movie is shorter and more condensed, so more time to do other things. It holds your attention more with visuals and sounds and is more fun too. Plus sometimes the movies produce good soundtracks you can listen to later. Or good clips you can use to make memes! I would say a movie makes more of an experience than a book does.

Some people say Movies don't include everything and aren't true to the book. But honestly I don't care if it includes everything and isn't completely true to the book. Honestly I don't want to know every little detail, that's just too much information. I'd rather see the whole picture then every little detail as far as Movies vs Books goes.

Also books are huge, heavy, and take up too much space. DVD case's are light, small, and don't take up too much space. And if you don't want the DVD, you can watch the movie just fine at the theatre or online; no physical space taken up.

Movies promote 'together-ness' more than books. You can all watch a movie together but can you read a book together? Yes, but this is easily more accomplished with a movie.

In short, Movies are easy, simple, and fun! Books are heavy, extensive, and require work mentally.

And that was my Books vs Movies rant. Sorry, had to get it out.

Am I wrong Folks? Let me know, I'm always interested to hear other opinions.

You are neither right nor wrong as this is your opinion.

I hold the opposite view on the question. [Image: read.gif]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-10-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
(05-10-2016 12:02 PM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  Depends on the book and/or movie.

I'm not a big fan of Anne Rice movies, but I hate her books. Seriously. Who the fuck takes up two fucking pages to describe a fucking tapestry? The book isn't about a fucking tapestry!

On the flip side, I do enjoy Heinlein's books, yet haven't seen a decent screen adaptation yet. I guess movie producers figure that the public doesn't want to see "talking-heads sci-fi".

The Aussies did "All You Zombies", in a movie called "Predestination." This was my first paradox story, back in 1964, and I enjoyed the movie.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 05-10-2016 01:06 PM by Gloucester.)
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
(05-10-2016 12:02 PM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  Depends on the book and/or movie.

I'm not a big fan of Anne Rice movies, but I hate her books. Seriously. Who the fuck takes up two fucking pages to describe a fucking tapestry? The book isn't about a fucking tapestry!

On the flip side, I do enjoy Heinlein's books, yet haven't seen a decent screen adaptation yet. I guess movie producers figure that the public doesn't want to see "talking-heads sci-fi".
"Starship Troopers" was a good movie if you did not compare it with the book too much. The book was the usual Heinlein thought provoker. The movie was just entertainment, it had about 1% of the nuances of the book.

Ditto "Dune", the Lynch version only paid homage to the book but, in terms of casting and cinematography, beat the more accurate TV version. Neither had the substance of the book though.

Edmund Burke once said, "To read without reflecting is like eating without digesting.". Videos are the fast food, books the banquet.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
05-10-2016, 01:44 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
I almost always enjoy the book better than the movie, but I also think that it's fun to read and see in either order--book and movie often enrich each other. Low effort, minimal time, and the weight of the book generally aren't deciding factors for me.

If I had to give up books or movies there's no contest: I'd give up movies. I've read and reread many books, while there are probably only four or five movies that I've watched more than once. Books are much richer for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
05-10-2016, 01:48 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
(05-10-2016 12:05 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(05-10-2016 11:15 AM)Cumulus Wrote:  In short, Movies are easy, simple, and fun! Books are heavy, extensive, and require work mentally.

Therein lies the difference for me. I enjoy thinking. I like putting my mind to work and books allow me to put effort into visualizing the environment and figuring out what the characters sound like. They give me the time to really get into the world being presented. That's time well spent. I generally find movies boring because I don't have to think, everything is just thrown at me.

It's not like I don't enjoy thinking. My existence as an Atheist testifies to that. Not that I think you think that. But it should be said in case you do or in case someone took your post that way.

I just think its best to save mental power. For instance, I started reading this giant monster of a book that is the collection of works of H. P. Lovecraft because I really like Cosmic Horror. But I found it easier to just look at the table of contents, find a summary of the story online, and take it from there. If I see something I don't recognize, i.e. the Elder Things, I just google them on the Wiki or Wikipedia. It's just a more convenient way of processing information for me. Why read a whole book when I can get a summary?

I've even done this with movies. I guess I can't hold my attention on one thing for that long unless I'm doing something while I'm reading/watching it. Maybe I have ADD or something I dunno.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
(05-10-2016 01:48 PM)Cumulus Wrote:  
(05-10-2016 12:05 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Therein lies the difference for me. I enjoy thinking. I like putting my mind to work and books allow me to put effort into visualizing the environment and figuring out what the characters sound like. They give me the time to really get into the world being presented. That's time well spent. I generally find movies boring because I don't have to think, everything is just thrown at me.

It's not like I don't enjoy thinking. My existence as an Atheist testifies to that. Not that I think you think that. But it should be said in case you do or in case someone took your post that way.

I just think its best to save mental power. For instance, I started reading this giant monster of a book that is the collection of works of H. P. Lovecraft because I really like Cosmic Horror. But I found it easier to just look at the table of contents, find a summary of the story online, and take it from there. If I see something I don't recognize, i.e. the Elder Things, I just google them on the Wiki or Wikipedia. It's just a more convenient way of processing information for me. Why read a whole book when I can get a summary?

I've even done this with movies. I guess I can't hold my attention on one thing for that long unless I'm doing something while I'm reading/watching it. Maybe I have ADD or something I dunno.

A summary only tells you the bare bones of "what happened". For any book that's worth reading, there's a whole lot more to it than that. If you consider a summary equal to reading the book, either (1) the books you've been reading aren't worth reading; or (2) reading just isn't for you.

Lovecraft isn't the greatest writer out there, but I would say he's definitely worth reading. And a summary couldn't possibly do him justice. The way he tells the story is worth at least as much as the story he's telling. This is true of any good writer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
05-10-2016, 02:17 PM
RE: A CASE FOR MOVIES OVER BOOKS
I prefer movies, they make things more real. Sometimes in books things may seem OK, but when you have to visualise it, you work out that it doesn't quite work very well. Plus I think there are some great actors and stage designers and directors etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: