# Do you prefer to read novels or watch movies?



## chongjasmine (Jul 9, 2021)

Which do you prefer? Me? I am a book person.


----------



## Bick (Jul 9, 2021)

I enjoy both - why would you compare the two? They aren’t mutually exclusive are they? I expect everyone on here loves to read books, and most will enjoy movies too.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jul 9, 2021)

Neither and both.
They fulfil different needs in me.
A film can move the way I think and change the way I view the world.
A story can create incredible worlds inside my head that live with me for ever.


----------



## Foxbat (Jul 9, 2021)

Both. Each have merits. Sometimes I just want to sit back, be entertained and not have to think too much. Movies are good for that. If I feel the need for something deeper, I find a book the more immersive of the two.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 9, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> Neither and both.
> They fulfil different needs in me.
> A film can move the way I think and change the way I view the world.
> A story can create incredible worlds inside my head that live with me for ever.


The problem for me is if I watch a film made from a book I have read I find it very hard not to think of the films images the next time I read the book.


----------



## CupofJoe (Jul 9, 2021)

Vladd67 said:


> The problem for me is if I watch a film made from a book I have read I find it very hard not to think of the films images the next time I read the book.


Very true. The only film/book combination that really works for me is To kill a Mockingbird. I read the book as a kid then saw the film. 
Atticus Finch was as I imagined him. Scout, Jim, Dill, and Tom Robinson all felt familiar. I had Boo Radley as more of a monstrous figure, but that was because I was a child and reading him as Scout was imagining him.
I have the audio book narrated by Sissy Spacek and she has become the voice of Scout as narrator when I read the book.


----------



## Rodders (Jul 9, 2021)

I have to admit to becoming somewhat bored of movies, especially hollywood. So i prefer to read.

It has to be said though that gaming is a pretty underrated source of great stories.


----------



## Phyrebrat (Jul 9, 2021)

Both - and to write ‘em too 

One thing that’s been depressingly noticeable is when I moved to London in 2004 the Tube was full of book readers but nowadays it’s people on mobiles playing Gem Drop kind of games. (It also stops me from putting my head in all sorts of tortuous angles trying to subtly see what they’re reading.)


----------



## Lawrence Twiddy (Jul 9, 2021)

They are both different platforms in terms of creative art. I don’t think you can compare them - fairly anyway. Unless you are comparing an individual piece done in both platforms.
And i cannot say there is any movie that I have ever seen that I preferred to the book.
I would be interested to hear any suggestions where someone thought the movie was better than the book? I can’t think of one.


----------



## Parson (Jul 10, 2021)

For me it's books. I love books and have rarely found a S.F. film outside of the Star Wars or Star Trek universe that I liked. But I always thought that Star Trek and Star Wars were the exceptions because they were "video" before they were books. The movie book combo that probably works best for me is "Flowers for Algernon."


----------



## Extollager (Jul 10, 2021)

Books.


----------



## MartinC (Jul 10, 2021)

I'm going to take a deep breath here and accept that I'm going to be in minority here... Movies.

It's probably a strange thing to admit considering where I'm posting this, but I did Broadcast Media at University and there's also an emotional attachment to the medium from my childhood that I don't quite have with books (my sister was the big reader in the family, I was the one happy watching Star Trek). 

That's not to say I don't read and don't enjoy books, I just don't read as much as I should!


----------



## MartinC (Jul 10, 2021)

Lawrence Twiddy said:


> They are both different platforms in terms of creative art. I don’t think you can compare them - fairly anyway. Unless you are comparing an individual piece done in both platforms.
> And i cannot say there is any movie that I have ever seen that I preferred to the book.
> I would be interested to hear any suggestions where someone thought the movie was better than the book? I can’t think of one.


Stardust - I enjoyed the book, I loved the film.


----------



## Lawrence Twiddy (Jul 10, 2021)

MartinC said:


> Stardust - I enjoyed the book, I loved the film.


Really? I haven’t read or seen either version. But I remember the film it had a great cast and Matthew Vaughan at the helm which can’t be to bad loved x men first class and the first kingsman before it went to commercially cinematic.
I would have to read the book before I give the film ago though, always in that order.


----------



## Lawrence Twiddy (Jul 10, 2021)

Parson said:


> For me it's books. I love books and have rarely found a S.F. film outside of the Star Wars or Star Trek universe that I liked. But I always thought that Star Trek and Star Wars were the exceptions because they were "video" before they were books. The movie book combo that probably works best for me is "Flowers for Algernon."


Yeah video before book works in that direction. I think the origin source is always the best I suppose, that’s where the idea and love for that idea started so always works best when created be the original architect.


----------



## MartinC (Jul 10, 2021)

Lawrence Twiddy said:


> Really? I haven’t read or seen either version. But I remember the film it had a great cast and Matthew Vaughan at the helm which can’t be to bad loved x men first class and the first kingsman before it went to commercially cinematic.
> I would have to read the book before I give the film ago though, always in that order.


I will admit I saw the film first, but there's this charm in the storytelling in the film that I think elevates it above the book. Maybe it's more in keeping with the kind of film I enjoy as well - it's tone reminded me of the Princess Bride, and who doesn't love that film!


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 10, 2021)

Parson said:


> For me it's books. I love books and have rarely found a S.F. film outside of the Star Wars or Star Trek universe that I liked. But I always thought that Star Trek and Star Wars were the exceptions because they were "video" before they were books. The movie book combo that probably works best for me is "Flowers for Algernon."




Yes there are few films that are better than the novel they are based on, and few books better than the movie they are based on. Nothing in written form could describe the thundering star destroyer travelling overhead at the beginning of Star Wars, and no movie could hope to truly encapsulate the inner thoughts or the complex themes of a book like Nineteen Eighty Four.

There are certain exceptions, where this isn't true. or where the movie is able to deviate or expand on the original novel to better the experience. For example 2001 or Blade Runner.


----------



## Lawrence Twiddy (Jul 10, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yes there are few films that are better than the novel they are based on, and few books better than the movie they are based on. Nothing in written form could describe the thundering star destroyer travelling overhead at the beginning of Star Wars, and no movie could hope to truly encapsulate the inner thoughts or the complex themes of a book like Nineteen Eighty Four.
> 
> There are certain exceptions, where this isn't true. or where the movie is able to deviate or expand on the original novel to better the experience. For example 2001 or Blade Runner.


What novels @paranoid marvin  do you think are bettered by it’s version in film? Only ask because I’m intrigued.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 10, 2021)

Lawrence Twiddy said:


> What novels @paranoid marvin  do you think are bettered by it’s version in film? Only ask because I’m intrigued.



Hi, as I mentioned above I think that 2001 expanded and improved upon Arthur C Clarke's 'The Sentinel', and Blade Runner on Philip K Dick's 'Electric Sheep'.

There's also 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' and 'The Shining'. Jack Nicholson took both of the stories to different places.


----------



## Elckerlyc (Jul 10, 2021)

The question, I think,  was whether you in general prefer reading book or watch a movie. Well, for me that's books. A good fat door-stopper can keep me entertained for a few days. A movie will perhaps keep me busy for 2 hours or so. It's more of an 'in between' thing, a time-killer, where a book is more of an immersing experience.
Also, there are very, very (did I mention 'very' already?) few movies lately that can make me putting my book down to watch a movie in stead.

About movies better than the novel they are based on; I found the film-version of 'The Name of the Rose' more interesting than the novel was.


----------



## Lawrence Twiddy (Jul 10, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Hi, as I mentioned above I think that 2001 expanded and improved upon Arthur C Clarke's 'The Sentinel', and Blade Runner on Philip K Dick's 'Electric Sheep'.
> 
> There's also 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' and 'The Shining'. Jack Nicholson took both of the stories to different places.


Oh yeah I saw that but I thought you mentioned them because they deviate or expanded on a idea rather than try emulate its original form in film. 
Blade runner is loosely based upon Phillips K Dick’s original work so tough to compare. And with 2001, Arthur C Clarke actually co-wrote it, so I love that as he is the original architect and involved in the film spin off, but again hard to compare himself to himself.

Oh yes both these films are incredible! I have not read their book counterparts to comment on them but I suppose without the book they wouldn’t even exist so I still have a romantic place towards Ken Kesey and Mr King’s novels even though I haven’t read them.


----------



## Lawrence Twiddy (Jul 10, 2021)

Elckerlyc said:


> The question, I think,  was whether you in general prefer reading book or watch a movie. Well, for me that's books. A good fat door-stopper can keep me entertained for a few days. A movie will perhaps keep me busy for 2 hours or so. It's more of an 'in between' thing, a time-killer, where a book is more of an immersing experience.
> Also, there are very, very (did I mention 'very' already?) few movies lately that can make me putting my book down to watch a movie in stead.
> 
> About movies better than the novel they are based on; I found the film-version of 'The Name of the Rose' more interesting than the novel was.


Yeah I hear that, I find the books a lot more of an immersive experience. Maybe that’s why I lean towards them more often.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 10, 2021)

Elckerlyc said:


> The question, I think,  was whether you in general prefer reading book or watch a movie. Well, for me that's books. A good fat door-stopper can keep me entertained for a few days. A movie will perhaps keep me busy for 2 hours or so. It's more of an 'in between' thing, a time-killer, where a book is more of an immersing experience.
> Also, there are very, very (did I mention 'very' already?) few movies lately that can make me putting my book down to watch a movie in stead.
> 
> About movies better than the novel they are based on; I found the film-version of 'The Name of the Rose' more interesting than the novel was.



Yes, there is more commitment to reading a book. For me, a reasonably sized novel novel will usually take me 2 weeks to read - a movie is over in 2 hours. If I'm travelling or away from home, I feel that there are less distractions and it is easier to commit to reading a novel; also I can usually get it read in a much shorter time. With home life, it's normally a case of grabbing entertainment whilst I can, which often is watching an old 30 minute comedy or (if I have a bit more time) an old movie. Led in bed at night, it will be a 30 minute read of a book before sleep.

And I agree that there are very few movies nowadays that are must watch, or at least worth repeated  watching.

I've not read the book, but The Name of the Rose certainly is a fine film, and reminds me to some extent with the first book of the Shradlake series Dissolution (which is a great story).


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jul 10, 2021)

Lawrence Twiddy said:


> Oh yeah I saw that but I thought you mentioned them because they deviate or expanded on a idea rather than try emulate its original form in film.
> Blade runner is loosely based upon Phillips K Dick’s original work so tough to compare. And with 2001, Arthur C Clarke actually co-wrote it, so I love that as he is the original architect and involved in the film spin off, but again hard to compare himself to himself.
> 
> Oh yes both these films are incredible! I have not read their book counterparts to comment on them but I suppose without the book they wouldn’t even exist so I still have a romantic place towards Ken Kesey and Mr King’s novels even though I haven’t read them.




Ah I see what you mean. Cuckoo's Nest book is quite different to the movie (the story being told from the perspective of Chief Bromden), whereas King's Shining is more spooky where the movie is horror.

For movies that closely follow the book, then the written word wins just about every time. I would have special mention to the first 2 Harry Potter films which really brought the books to  life, and where very faithful to the source material. This tended to deviate with the later movie versions, but the first 2 were magical.


----------



## asp3 (Aug 13, 2021)

I'm definitely a book person overall and especially when it comes to science fiction.  I find most "science fiction" movies to be action films set in a science fiction universe with cool technological advances which look great on the screen.


----------



## paeng (Aug 14, 2021)

It depends on which version's better.


----------



## Don (Aug 21, 2021)

Books. Movies tend to put me to sleep. My eyelids grow heavy so they're closed for a second or two. And before you know it, the movie "jumps" fifteen minutes into the future. Then my wife sort of quizzes me as to whether I fell asleep (again).


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Aug 21, 2021)

Movies and books are both good. Definitely prefer movies on TV screen over theater. Print books over eBooks. The movies don't match the books, sometimes they complement, other times it's a different story.


----------



## Rodders (Aug 21, 2021)

I definitely prefer books, but movies are so accessible and easily digested. I am bored with them at the moment, though.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Aug 21, 2021)

Audiobooks!!!

The act of reading is a negative experience.  The story must be so good that it overrides the negativity of reading. I can speed up the playback of audiobooks, but I do that with movies too.

I can drive or wash dishes while listening to an audiobook.

But I cheat.

I have an app called AIReader on my phone. It reads ebooks so I rarely buy expensive audiobooks. The sound isn't nearly as good as real audiobooks but it is better than normal reading.

When a movie is derived from a book it usually leaves out lots of details so an audiobook has the best of both worlds.


----------



## Astro Pen (Aug 21, 2021)

The fundamental difference is that with a book you create the imagery whereas in a movie it is someone else's visualisation. This makes the movie experience more social, more shareable "I loved the bit where....etc'.  
Books create a private world. You can't share them in the same way you can movies but they are a more personal  experience.


----------



## Guttersnipe (Sep 21, 2021)

Novels. You kind of get to make your own movie.


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Oct 27, 2021)

Books, for definite,  because they are so much "richer". Tv/films control what you think, where writing offers the possibility of interrogating the text and drawing your own conclusions


----------



## Ray Zdybrow (Oct 27, 2021)

Guttersnipe said:


> Novels. You kind of get to make your own movie.


Liked your post but I really don't think it's true... a book/story is NOT "like a movie in your head"... the experience is totally different. And it's an entirely different way of storytelling. The medium, as Marshall McLuhan said, is the message


----------



## Bick (Oct 27, 2021)

psikeyhackr said:


> The act of reading is a negative experience.  The story must be so good that it overrides the negativity of reading.


This view is diametrically opposite to every feeling and opinion I hold regarding books and reading.


----------



## Vladd67 (Oct 28, 2021)

I have always thought the book was better than the film, but I am currently reading The Godfather, and to be honest, this may be the book to prove me wrong.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Nov 16, 2021)

Bick said:


> This view is diametrically opposite to every feeling and opinion I hold regarding books and reading.


This would almost mean there is no book that you have to force yourself to finish.  I have tried comparing my reading tastes to the Goodreads rating system. The cutoff seems to be about 3.8.
If a book is rated below that I become more reluctant. 

Admittedly trying to rate a book by a single number is a bit absurd but, so many books, so little time.


----------



## Vladd67 (Nov 17, 2021)

Vladd67 said:


> I have always thought the book was better than the film, but I am currently reading The Godfather, and to be honest, this may be the book to prove me wrong.


It did.


----------



## BAYLOR (Nov 29, 2021)

Ive watched many a novel . Quite frankly, staring at a closed  book is just not that exciting.


----------

