The Book or The Film?

[Scrambler Fanny]

I would greatly appreciate everyone's genuine response to this question.  I am going to be writing an essay on this debate and I thought I would ask a group of guys that I spend a fair amount of time around.  If you feel strongly one way or the other, I'd really like to know why.  Thanks!

[Red Bull]

Read it. A story conveys emotional aspects, and i just like to interpret a story by myself instead of being lazy and let some director do it for me. Some authors can write so vividly it's actually pretty ridiculous; and those kind of things cannot be put in any movie whatsoever. Of course, it all depends on the book itself. Like.. I wouldn't want to know how bad a movie of Catcher in the Rye would be; then again, Lord of the Rings is a perfect example of a great film based on a book.

[Scrambler Fanny]

Excellent post Max!    I agree completely!

[Nindif]

This is a subjective issue. I voted 'watch it', based simply on a paper i wrote for my uni course in 2007.

I actually wrote the paper on the transformation that happens to books when adapted into film. I could send it to you for further analysis if you want. the general consensus to come form it was:

"Films therefore serve as superior medium for the introduction of an idea to a larger audience, and novels can provide further insight into these ideas. It can easily be argued either way, however, my predisposition is toward film, for I believe they can be far more provocative and as Persson stated, the audience is equally mentally stimulated by film as novels. Films bring the world to life, give identity and can enhance aspects of books;  Donkey from ‘Shrek’ would not be as funny without his portrayal by actor Eddy Murphy, it is the actor which brings the character to life and reading a character like donkey without Eddy Murphy would unlikely be as entertaining. "

REFERENCES:
Corliss, R., Grossmann, L., Schickel, R., Lluscombe, B. (2005, November) Books Vs Movies. Time Magazine.  Accessed Electronically 20 / 4/ 2007 via Google Search.
Ewing, R,. Simons, J. (2004) Beyond the Script: Take Two: Drama in the Classroom. Newtown, Australia: PETA.
Persson, P. (2003) Understanding Cinema: A Psychological Theory of Moving Imagery. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stephenson, R., Debrix, J.R. (1969) The Cinema as Art. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

I would personally argue for two films as superior to novels: Fight Club and No Country For Old Men. The film versions of these are far more refined in story elements, equally thematic and metaphoric and inferential and overall entertainment value. When done right, films are better.

The argument can go either way, like my quote from my paper stated, films do things better in circumstances, books do others. Books have more content (generally) than film and more scope to develop the story, wheras a film is 2-3 hours finish (generally).  But because i would recommend the unusual order of watching a film before reading the book, i think film is superior (generally, because everyone knows there's some bad film adaptations).

[Matis]

watch it...


i'm more of a visual learner and tend to lean towards movies over books all the time. Other then actually wanting to work on them I think this is a lot like left side of the brain vs right. Like max said books convey emotional aspects. Movies can do the same and more I think. Depending on the budget and who is directing a film can really change you. This is obviously a matter of opinion...

[Darth Vader]

Watch it for christ sake..

[Scrambler Fanny]

Nindif and Matabird-

both excellent posts!  thanks for your opinions.  i said that i agreed with Max 100%, but it seems that when you bring everything into the light, there really is no one answer better than the other.  that example of Donkey from Shrek was perfect!  i doubt anyone could ever read into a character what Eddie Murphy put into it.  these are great ideas guys.  

Marc-

why do you prefer to watch movies over reading books?  is it for the sake of Jesus Christ?

[vitor]

I think both are the same for me. I enjoy watching a movie and, if possible, reading the book later on. I watched The Godfather like 3 times and read the book twice! I'm not much of a "reader" person, but when I have the chance, I try to do both. For me, the book is a complement for a great film when I have the chance! It's easier to watch movies than read a full book, so we tend to watch more movies than read books. Both have their own values, I guess. A great film with great acting can really change your mind, as matis said. But I voted for the book because it has way more details and side stories than the film, but only because I had to choose one :P

[RWG]

I'd rather watch it, because watching it takes 2 hours and reading it takes anywhere between 25-100 hours.  It's called efficiency.

As the world advances, everything becomes so much more efficient.  Some ancient people prefer the inefficient way because they are afraid of change, so they continue reading books.

[Scrambler Fanny]

Vitor and Ryan-

both worthy chimes.  coming at it from a strict "efficient" point of view is an interesting way to look at it.

[AZ]

Watch it. For multiple reasons. 

although I really enjoy reading too, but it's generally easier to stay focus on a film than a book (at least for me) and the medium simply captures me more and as Ryan said, it takes 10-100 times longer to read the book than watching the film. That is one of the main factors why I don't enjoy TV-series; it takes ages to watch all episodes and another main reason is that series aren't discussed/written about as much as movies. And they aren't in as many top lists ; Imdb only has one list for TV mini-series and as you can see on my ICM account I've watched 0/50.

One thing for sure though, I haven't read as many bad books as I've seen bad films (obviously). I can't think of a bad book I've read in its entirely; if it's bad I'd stop reading it; I would never stop watching a film even if I think it sucks.

Also, I would like to state that dramas are 5 billions better reading them than watching them imo; all Shakespeare, Greek tragedies such as "Medea" etc etc are GREAT in its original, but is often a complete bore for me when they are made into movies AND that it actually takes longer to watch the film than reading the play which is awesome in a way. I mean it took me roughly 2 hours to read "Hamlet" but the film versions are 150-240 minutes or something. But maybe dramas aren't put into consideration on your essay, afan, just novels?

[Darth Vader]

Marc-

why do you prefer to watch movies over reading books? is it for the sake of Jesus Christ?

The answer is pretty simple. It's the silence when reading a book. I like to hear the characters voices and enjoy the soundtracks. I have multiple reasons, but i just get much more pumped when watching the movie. It's always more epic to me than the book. Btw, my eyes get hurt when i read and i get kinda seasick.



  

[Time was untied when set.]

Watch it. Reading is boring imo.

[GuitarFailKid]

yeah reading is hard work, watch the movie. lol

[Carathorn]

agreed!

[Invertigone]

I would rather read it. I have read and watched Frankenstein, enjoyed the book more. I have also read and watched Maltese Falcon, the book had more details. Besides I am not too big on movies anyway.

[Henning Blom]

reading first, if I think it might be a good book, otherwise just watching the movie and later (maybe) read the book if it was good.

[octoinky]

A well written book tells a better story, and lets the reader use their imagination to help shape the story.  A movie force feeds you a lot more, and while a good movie can instill a lot of emotions and help visualize settings and relate to characters, you miss a lot on the screen.  A book can let you know what the characters are thinking, and can do a better job of managing multiple storylines that are occurring simultaneously.

That said, I'm too lazy to read a book.  Give me a movie FFS