Simple. Brief. Entirely unSkaldlike. I can’t exaplain it either.
Prefer movies in general to books in general? E.g., “I’d rather spend my afternoon reading a good book than watching a movie”?
Or, prefer the movie versions of stories to the book versions of those same stories. E.g., “‘Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King’ was a freaking awesome movie, despite being based on that boring book.”
The first. I am ignoring your final sentence, as I don’t feel especially Rhymerian today.
To give a serious answer, I’d say books and movies give me different things, and which of those things I want depends on my mood. Going to a movie can be a social experience in a way that reading a book isn’t (for me at least – I’ve never tried joining a book club, though). So when I’m in a more social mood, I’d rather see a movie, whereas when I’m craving something more solitary I’d go with a book. I will sometimes go to a movie by myself, but only if it’s something I really want to see and none of my friends are interested.
I guess there are more movies that I’ll go out of my way to see, whereas with books I hear about one that sounds interesting and I’ll add it to my reading list, but who knows when I’ll get around to it. That may be mostly because movies are only in the theaters for a limited time, or possibly even due to the influence of advertising.
One big advantage of books over movies is quantity. You can read a really great book every week for a lifetime, and never run out, but if you see a movie every week, you’re going to have to settle for some mediocre ones.
There are also a lot of things you can do in a book that you can’t really do in a movie. All movies must inherently depict some sort of reality, but there’s no limit to the unreality you can achieve in a book.
I prefer books because you can squeeze them in when you have the opportunity. I can read a little bit of book on my break from work or between loads of laundry. But watching a movie is a BIG outlay of time for me. In fact, unless I’m in a theater, I’ll usually be watching a movie and thinking “oh there’s so much I should be doing right now.” I really can’t settle in and enjoy it.
Though the nice thing about so many cable channels re-running movies multiple times a day for weeks on end is: I can watch 20 minutes of, say, the Wedding Singer, then watch 20 minutes more a couple days later, etc etc until I’ve seen the whole thing. (Is there a book of Wedding Singer? HAHAHAHA. I guess for some things you have to go with the movie.)
It depends on your preferences, but there are plenty of horrible books out there, too. I don’t really think great books outweigh great movies. My current reading list is just shy of 500 books, and my movies-to-watch list is about the same.
In general, I like both pretty equally. I read when I can fit it in, and I like letting my imagination run rampant. But it’s nice to just sit back and watch a movie and not have to do much thinking.
It’s okay, we still love you.
I prefer books to movies.
- What voguevixen said. I don’t have two-hour chunks of uninterrupted time.
- I also don’t seem to have much attention span for movies. With books, I can skim over description if it gets to be too much, but movies have to be taken at their own pace.
- Movies are noisy, books are quiet.
I can read books with violence and sex without hitting pause or chasing my children out of the room. It is nice to read something adult on the couch without the little ones asking questions.
I prefer movies when I want to see a great actor, a great director, or a great bit of special effects. Movies are also more community oriented for me - I don’t watch them alone.
Oh, sure, I never said that there weren’t. But you don’t have to read the horrible ones.
You don’t have to watch the horrible movies either. There have been a few movies where after about 10-20 minutes I give up on it.
I’m just not sure I agree that the great books out there outweigh the great movies. With the amount of books and movies on my to-read and to-watch list, I could keep up with decent books and movies for at least the next 10 years and things would be about even.
“Books furnish a room.”
An excellent point, though I’d have rather read a crappy book then seen a crappy movie for some reason. (Though many crappy movies are more worthwhile than crappy books. Why is that?) Hrmmm.
I can read a book in the john. I can take a cheap and easy book out on the boat, and not be concerned if it falls overboard. I would be very upset if the portable DVD player went into the briney.
I do not seem to have a block of time to devote to a film often enough to watch more than one film a month.
I can find more books than I can read for cheap at the thrift store. DVDs are still too pricey even at Goodwill to be disposable.
I currently have downloaded (from Librivox.org) several classic novels that I had never gotten around to read to my MP3 player to listen to in the car on my commute. I am currently two-thirds of the way through Babbitt, which is as good a story as I heard it was.
Lately, I find it really easy to get motion sick watching too much camera movement and dizzying special effects. So I’m starting to prefer reading movie novelizations rather than watching the real thing.
The thing with movies is, even if I don’t really feel like watching, I can still get sucked in. However, reading takes a bit of effort to get started, and a bit of effort to keep going on the boring parts. With a movie, you just sorta wait, but with a book, you actually have to slug through.
The time commitment with books is different, as well. It’s not that all books take longer than an “equivalent” movie, but that many books are designed to take longer. I can’t do what a lot of people do and just read a small portion per day, because I will not remember what I’ve read before. The most I can handle is a single split.
So, I prefer books to motion-sick movies, but I prefer other movies to books. Movies just tend to move faster, meaning any part that causes tension I know will be over quickly.
Books, because no-one makes big-screen Pratchett or Banks movies.
OK, also the portability, the variety, the joy of good words well-used, the artistry of a good book illustration…
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good movie, a visual feast unlike anything you could do with words (I’ve not come across a prose writer who can do with words what Zhang Yimou does with colour), but I *prefer *books overall.
It’s a matter of history: books have been written for thousands of years; movies have been around for only a little more than a hundred. Of course there are many more great books to choose from - they have such a huge headstart. (That said, it may still be that there are enough masterpieces in both mediums to keep any one person happy for a lifetime.)
Personally, I can’t really say which I prefer.
I used to be a bit of a snob about how books are “better” than movies and then one day I realised that, while there are dozens of movies that I have seen several times but would happily watch again, there are very few books that I would reread repeatedly.
I prefer movies because most are 80-180 minutes long. I read at the same pace that I talk, so getting through a novel takes a long time.
As I’ve gotten older and use the internet more I prefer a movie.
I used to read daily until about 15 years ago then I gradually replaced daily reading with daily surfing.
I still buy books, but end up not reading them. I’ve got several dozen books that have never been opened. I’ve also completely stopped reading the daily newspaper and weekly/monthly magazines.
And I’ve gotten stoopudder.