Books or movies?

[En_Fuego]

Which do you like more...books or movies? This thread isn't intended to judge books that get turned into movies, just books/movies individually.

I prefer books because there's a lot more variety. Generally in movies I notice that the story can become non-linear (I guess the same can be said for books..) and that dialog tends to over-throw the actual action (which is the point of a movie).

 

[Dynasti]

Comics

 

[X.e.r.e.X]

Movies, less stuff to read ftw

 

[Restor]

it depends, lotr book was better than film but dune movie was better than book

 

[Razorbrain]

i tend to like movies better mainly because they are shorter, and my brain requires less processing power to watch a movie

 

[En_Fuego]

it depends, lotr book was better than film but dune movie was better than book

I said don't take book/movie counterparts into consideration.

For the record, the Dune movie sucked ass.

 

[LordDz]

Books, but I never get into reading them so.. Movies ^^ .

 

[SirNathan]

Books are mostly better than their films..
And you need to read books for some days...
So you have something to do and wont sit there and do nothing..

 

[reza sword2]

Books are better. Those English vocabularies just extends my imagination.

COMEZ ONZ PEOPLEZ, WE NEEDZ MOR IMAGINATIONZZ!!!!

 

[cool_is_i]

I like reading, but there are very few books that i like,
so movies

 

[Dark Master]

MOVIES.... Because of visual effects, and they are just better. BUT, if you want longer and more detailed story, take the book....

 

[Zombie]

Computers pwn them both. I rarely watch a movie or read a book. Despite that, reading a good book is better than watching a good movie I think.

 

[cool_is_i]

^
agreed

 

[Mechanical Man]

Books cuz i can read them in bed

 

[Gilles]

I prefer to watch movies, however books are usually much better than their movie counterparts, so it's a bit of an oxymoron.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

You can't really compare the two. Books and movies can give the exact same details in completely opposite ways.

 

[brad.dude03]

I generally prefer books. Cheaper, and offer more entertainment, for longer.

Movies can be great too, but generally if there's a book for it then the book is better than the movie.

 

[TheBlooddancer]

Books > Movies.

Or well, it depends on the genre.

 

[Vampiro320]

I like movies best. I can hardly imagine what is going on, In the movies it's all done for me, and is way more entertaining because you get to see the cool stuff. (What if they were climbing a volcano and you've never seen one? Why bother take the time to go ask,or look up a picture, I just want to read a book) And if you are reading something like Eregon It's a great story, i liked it, but i didn't know what the words meant, you don't have to worry about that in movies. And besides i love horror, being scared is the funnest thing. Books are not scary. It gets really hard to picture whats going on, and finding ways to visualize it scary, in movies, there walking, and play and organ, then something happens. I can't do the walking AND Oregon in my mind. I say movies all the way.

 

[HFR]

Well, books are much more detailed, the writer can put all his things there. As for the movies, they don't have lots of details, but actually you can see the guys talking the actions and etc. Movies are best to watch and to entertainement, but books have more things, like characters, stories and places that don't show up in movies.

 

[Just_Spectating]

books put me to sleep and unless i want to read teh whole thing in one day, the story will always be cut in parts.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Books cuz i can read them in bed

Uhh, Laptops and/or Portable DVD Players?

That being said, Books. I love movies, and how they visually depict really cool stuff... But nothing beats books. It only requires your eyes (no electricity needed ), the number of books is nigh-limitless, they can provide multiple enjoyments (movies can too, meh)... Books, definitely. The stories they contain are nearly always more in-depth and interesting than in movies (the thought-processes of characters and stuff).

 

[Just_Spectating]

but an action movie beats an action book.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Maybe true. But I was always a Sci-Fi/Fantasy fan, myself.

(then again, Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies are, like, teh awexome...)

 

[Just_Spectating]

science is pretty broad.
Books would be better for that kind of thing because movies would only have some cheezy effect. (maybe not cheezy, but books have more powerful images)

 

[HFR]

Fantasy > LotR > Battle of Pellenor Fields:

Movie: 20.000 orcs, 10.000 Gondoryans and 6.000 knights of Rohan clashing into an looooong battle. Amazing effects, action and epicness.

Book: "And so the battle began... thousands of units clashing in the battlefield...
Just words... No sound, no images, no action and epicness, but more details.

 

[Just_Spectating]

but an action movie beats an action book.

*Achhoo*

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

How can you even compare the two...?

EDIT: Action books always suck.

 

[HFR]

I really don't know, but... We do this the same way.

 

[brad.dude03]

The great thing about books is that they can be as awesome as you want them to be, you just have to have the imagination for it.

 

[Vampiro320]

The great thing about books is that they can be as awesome as you want them to be, you just have to have the imagination for it.

And if you don't have an imagination, they suck.

 

[Just_Spectating]

and patience.

 

[brad.dude03]

Yes, which is precisely why most people don't read books. They have no imagination.

 

[Just_Spectating]

or patience.

 

[HFR]

It's hard to imagine an entire book in your head. So, I stay with movies.

 

[Just_Spectating]

You sir lack imagination.

 

[HFR]

For 500 pages... Yes.

 

[Just_Spectating]

you sir also lack patience.

 

[HFR]

I lack... But movies are best.

 

[Restor]

I said don't take book/movie counterparts into consideration.

For the record, the Dune movie sucked ass.

Dune was very controversal movie, but for me, one of the best scifi of 80's.

 

[Paku]

I like books but movies are awesome. But i dont like some movies. Like some of those lame computer graphics movies like shrek, and if my friends watch it then they go like "Awesome movie. Totally epic man!". But again books are longer and u can read them quietly without ppl annoying u in msn. So i think it's a draw.

But the uhh things what are 20-40 minutes long and there's like seasons own them all. Espessialy Black Books.

 

[Emperor_Jackal]

I am quite picky with fictional books. The last two I read for fun was The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and I Am Legend, and I read I am Legend a year before the 3rd Movie adaptation came out. Between those two books, I've probably been forced to read about half a dozen books for one reason or another. I liked THHGG because it was cleverly funny, and I probably ended up re-reading about a fifth of all the pages because of that. I enjoyed I Am Legend the book because it was not too long and horrifically detailed, but it had focus on a good plot.

With that aside, I prefer movies in general for several reasons. One, I am not imaginative enough for books. I can tell fully what is going on in a movie (The Godfather aside, I get a bit lost there) whereas in a book I can struggle to do just that. Two, movies are easier to get right whereas with books it is much easier to go wrong. And three, movies spend less time and get to the point.


There is no doubt a good book beats a good movie, but then an average movie beats an average book.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Like some of those lame computer graphics movies like shrek...they go like "Awesome movie. Totally epic man!".

? Shrek wasn't epic. It was funny, though.

There is no doubt a good book beats a good movie, but then an average movie beats an average book.

I think that's an important distinction to make. Perhaps the question we should be asking.

 

[Just_Spectating]

it all depends.

 

[HFR]

Correct. But movies are better in some ways and books in another ways.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

There's a bit of both. There are many elements of books that are simply better left to your imagination, and there are many elements that you really have to see to truly feel. There are plots that are far too complex to be encompassed as a movie, and just as many that would be far too simplistic or boring to be written as a book. It really comes down to what you want to make.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Books have better plot twists.

 

[brad.dude03]

There are some mediums that just can't work as movies ever.

Video games, for example. A visual medium, but such a vastly different experience than movies, which is why the movies based on the video games suck.

All of them. Every single one, without fail.

 

[Deathcom3s]

I'd prefer books to movies, mainly because movies based on books tend to twist the way you originally thought of the book. For example, i can't read Harry Potter anymore without thinking of the characters from the movies, and in my opinion, my perception of the book was better than that of the movie, so it kind of ruins it for me.

 

[arafor]

Books are superior to movies for quite a few reasons:

1: They don't suck
2: They make sense more than half the time
3: They last a lot longer than movies relatively speaking(Shakespeare)
4: You can remember the name of a book easier than of a movie that is like hundreds of other movies.
5: You can hit people with them and they won't break

Nuff said Books for life.