Do you prefer to read novels or watch movies?

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
I definitely prefer books, but movies are so accessible and easily digested. I am bored with them at the moment, though.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Guttersnipe said:
Novels. You kind of get to make your own movie.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Bick said:
This view is diametrically opposite to every feeling and opinion I hold regarding books and reading.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
IWillREBEL What Are Your Writing/Reading Preferences? Book Discussion 7
ctg The Case Against E-readers -- Why Digital Natives Prefer Reading On Paper Publishing 19
B The preferred reading vs alternate interpretations Writing Discussion 9
vgunn What kind of prose to you prefer to read? What is your least favorite? Book Discussion 17
J Preferred reading order? Or; Whatever Happened to Series-Linear Narrative? Michael Moorcock 13

Similar threads


Back
Top