Films vs Books

[indy4 152]

Both great tools for storytelling, both works of art, both can bring out the deepest emotions of us. As much as I love books, I have to vote films on this one. I'm sure it partially has to do with my love for film music.

People say that books are better for the imagination, but I think that a good film can inspire the imagination just as much as a good book.

[Williamsfan301 11]

What about opera?

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Film.

[ChuckM 1]

Neither way is better as an absolute. It depends on the story being told.

[Williamsfan301 11]

Sure. The Bond movies always worked better as films than books. Even Ian Fleming admitted that.

[Red 73]

Apples and oranges.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Yes, films are oranges, and books are apples. I happen to like oranges better, so I choose film.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Films are more emotionally involving. Novels can be excellent, but I think if any great novel were adapted correctly, it would be better as a film. There are some exceptions though, some stories probably wouldn't work visually.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,064]

I will take a good ol' fashioned book over a movie ANY day of the week.

A good book is at least ten times better than a great movie.

But with the 5-1 to one vote with movies beating books people wonder why we have no creativity these days?

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I never liked the sentiment that film is less imaginative than a book. As Chuck stated, it all depends on the story told, and who is telling the story.

[Henry B 49]

Apples and oranges. There's no doubt in my mind, however, that books are a greater extension of the imagination. You probably won't cry over a great book, but you'll feel something so deep and intense it defies overt expression.

It's kind of like comparing Guillaume de Machaut to Bruce Broughton. Is his music as tuneful and joyous? No. Does it take your mind on a journey? ... Hell, yes.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

You probably won't cry over a great book, but you'll feel something so deep and intense it defies overt expression.

The same could be said for a film. But I agree, they're two very different mediums. However, when I write it tends to be very detailed, maybe I should stick to screenplays.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Like most have said, they're such different beasts. A good book can be digested over weeks, and as such has the time and opportunity to go deeper into the characters and the narrative, whereas a movie is over in two hours, so everything is distilled into a single focus. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes that's a bad thing.

[indy4 152]

I never liked the sentiment that film is less imaginative than a book. As Chuck stated, it all depends on the story told, and who is telling the story.

I don't think it's as much about a book being less imaginative than a film as much as it won't do as much to increase the viewer/reader's imagination. And I think that the best films provoke the imagination just as much as the best books. But I think that taking an average book and comparing it to an average film...average book allows for more creative exercise.

And I don't think this is like comparing apples to oranges. They are both arguably the most popular method of storytelling of modern time, and they are both works of art. Yes there are differences, but their must be in order to contrast them in a poll.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I never liked the "apple and orange" analogy. It makes sense, but is it really impossible to decide which fruit you prefer? They are both fruit, as well, which means there is at least one similarity for comparisons to be drawn. An apple and an elephant, however....

[indy4 152]

I agree, actually.

[artyjeffrey 20]

Books are better for the same reason that a violent scene in a movie is better if the violence is not shown: each individual will create images, sounds, and actions that are tailor-made to satisfy them. Just think of David Lean's "Great Expectations," when instead of seeing the woman get killed, we only see her dog, frantically clawing at the door. Movies, modern ones in general, go out of their way to spell it out for you.

When you're reading, you're filling it all in, in a way that satisfies you specifically (that's if the writer allows you to).

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Books don't have scores*.

*Shadows of the Empire doesn't count.

[Hitch 55]

Books are much better than the movies. John Grisham adaptations have been pretty dire with the exceptions of THE FIRM and A TIME TO KILL. THE DA VINCI CODE worked better on paper than it did on screen. Can't wait to see ANGELS & DEMONS

[Williamsfan301 11]

But with the 5-1 to one vote with movies beating books people wonder why we have no creativity these days?

Here here!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

I can't listen to a book on my awesome sound system, unless it's an audio version for the blind.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

When you're reading, you're filling it all in, in a way that satisfies you specifically (that's if the writer allows you to).

Yeah, I'm the kind of writer that tells you what to imagine, because I want people to have a specific interpetation. That's probably why I should stick to scriptwriting.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,251]

That means you don't trust the readers imagination, or your own talent.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

I wish Tolkien left more to the imagination.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

That means you don't trust your own talent.

You got that part right. I hate everything I write. Probably why I've never been able to finish something I've started, because I always start over.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Books are much better than the movies. John Grisham adaptations have been pretty dire with the exceptions of THE FIRM and A TIME TO KILL. THE DA VINCI CODE worked better on paper than it did on screen. Can't wait to see ANGELS & DEMONS

I was unaware that it worked on either....

And I do not think we were talking about adaptations, as well.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,064]

Our house has a small library in the office...of shelves and shelves of books. Right now we're going through and finding older editions of some of the books we have.

Reading books on a rainy Sunday afternoon (like today) is awesome. Especially those old books with the smelly pages, and that great feel. I have a 77 year old copy of The Count of Monte Cristo. Mmmmmm.

Honestly, today's youth is missing out. This whole internet-reading, it's quite literally back to stone ages, when documents were quite literally written on SCROLLS.

And movies do too much spoonfeeding. Think about it, a book is like John Williams giving you the baton and having you conduct "The Imperial March," to your own heart's desire.

A movie is like you putting in the Empire Strikes Back CD pressing play and skipping to the Imperial March track.

[Ollie 859]

Books. Why? Because it makes you and allows you to think more. Your imagination can run wild and view it the way you want it to be.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

What the?

[Ollie 859]

What?

Is something I said?

[Wojo 2,442]

A book allows for richer storytelling. It relies on the written word alone to let the reader imagine the story entirely in the mind. A movie relies on visuals and sound to tell a story, which completely feeds you the story, leaving little to the imagination (though there are notable exceptions), especially considering there is no time during a movie to stop and use your imagination. A reader can close the book and ponder a passage, or skip back a few pages and re-read something to get a better feel for the story. But you can't do that with a movie in its native format, the movie theater.

[Melange 446]

Films vs Books, Which is the better way to tell a story?

That which lies in the middle of both. Audio books.

I love audio books (if well done). They really exercise your powers of visualization.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

What?

Is something I said?

No. Just this thread.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Reading books on a rainy Sunday afternoon (like today) is awesome. Especially those old books with the smelly pages, and that great feel. I have a 77 year old copy of The Count of Monte Cristo. Mmmmmm.

Most definitely. Reading Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories by a window overlooking the vast nothing, expanse, that is Nevada during a downpour is a remarkable experience.

What?

Is something I said?

No. Just this thread.

Okay, so I know my "apples and oranges" comment was a bit "off-kilter", but still!

[JoeinAR 1,759]

there is no correct answer here, sometimes its either.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Some would find that answer uncharacteristic of you, Joey....

[BLUMENKOHL 1,064]

there is no correct answer here, sometimes its either.

False.

[Wojo 2,442]

there is no correct answer here, sometimes its either.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Some would find that answer uncharacteristic of you, Joey....

Jaws is an example of a film that is better than the book.

DePalma's Carrie is another.

Silence of the Lambs is a case where the book and the film were at least in my mind both equal successes.

The horror in the book becomes illuminated in the film through the incredible performances by an incredible cast.

This is a rare event, but it does occur.

Its more likely that the book will be superior, but like I said that isn't always the case, it could be either.

[indy4 152]

I'm not asking about adaptations. I'm asking which is the better form of art and storytelling.

[Koray Savas 2,095]

And the answer is film.

[Williamsfan301 11]

There is no answer. Each is equally good at what it's supposed to do: Entertain.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Hey, Williamsfan301, try watching your avatar while listening to "Out to Sea".

[Koray Savas 2,095]

Nick, have you ever been to one of my sexy parties?

[JoeinAR 1,759]

I'm not asking about adaptations. I'm asking which is the better form of art and storytelling.

qualify it however you want but sorry once again there is no right answer. And adaptation are a perfect example for discussing your question, it give you boths sides to view. Surely you could have figured that out.

And once again not all books and films are art. There are so many bad books out there, and so many bad films, just look at

Uwe Boll and RA Salvatore.

[indy4 152]

I'm not asking about adaptations. I'm asking which is the better form of art and storytelling.

qualify it however you want but sorry but but once again there is no right answer. And adaptation are a perfect example for discussing your question, it give you boths sides. Surely you could have figured that out.

No, they're not. Adaptations do not necessarily represent the best/worst of both genres. The world's greatest book will not necessarily be adapted into the world's greatest film. A prime example of this would be Timeline. Most people like the book, most people hate the film. It would be unfair to use these two in comparing books with films in general like this, because the two have such a difference in quality.

Surely you could have figured that out.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Well, indy4, adaptations can be very relevant to this discussion as it shows that working in one medium does not necessarily mean it will work in another.

Surely you could have figured that out.

[indy4 152]

But they aren't valid examples. You can't base your entire opinion on whether books are better than films or not just based on the fact that you like the HP books more than the movies.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

But they aren't valid examples. You can't base your entire opinion on whether books are better than films or not just based on the fact that you like the HP books more than the movies.

they are valid examples, and basing it on the fact that someone prefers one medium over another through success or failure of one medium over the other does validate it.

adaptation are prime examples oh one medium achieving success over the other. Whether its an artistic failure in the filmmakers part, or in other cases where a writing of the book was best told in a different medium.

Think about it indy4, even a film starts with a written script

Because they are two different formats, its not possible to say which is better because they are so different and both can be so good, or bad, and we each have favorites, and our disappointments, and outright dislikes in either.

The best part is you don't have to choose, because I'll partake of both until I die.

[indy4 152]

But they aren't valid examples. You can't base your entire opinion on whether books are better than films or not just based on the fact that you like the HP books more than the movies.

they are valid examples, and basing it on the fact that someone prefers one medium over another through success or failure of one medium over the other does validate it.

No, you're missing my point. If I was voting based on HP, I would easily vote books, because while the films are good, the books are fantastic. But that's not fair. HP represents, in my mind, the very top of written literature. The movies do not represent the best of film. The fact that both film and book are based on the same story does not guarantee that they will be made with the same quality. Depending on the quality of the adaptation, it would be like comparing Romeo and Juliet with Goosebumps and concluding that romantic stories are better than horror stories.