Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike

The book and/or the movie

Recommended Posts

I think someone with an imagination is disappointed with any movie. There's no room for personal creativity. The director is cramming their idea down your throat. Movies as a general rule, suck. Too many people with their own ideas in the creation. With a book it's a single writer with one vision.

In the past 20 plus years I've been to the theater twice. I don't have a TV hook-up so I don't see movies on television. I will admit to owning 3 movies on DVD. I would rather write my own book than watch mindless TV or movies. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be fair to say, someone with a vivid and creative imagination, should always be dissappointed with a film version of a book?

I have a vivid imagination and it would not be fair to state that. I will always see movies as better than books, even if I enjoyed reading books more. I don't care for what's in readers' heads since I can't see and hear that, so I don't use that crap as a measure to compare movies and books. I compare what is actually produced by the artists. I mean, by that extension, reading a cookbook is better than seeing, smelling, and tasting food... and reading Playboy is better than having sex. Screw that, movies ARE better than books :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I mean, by that extension, reading a cookbook is better than seeing, smelling, and tasting food... and reading Playboy is better than having sex. Screw that, movies ARE better than books

B.A., not a clear analogy to the movie/book debate.

Indeed, through the above, you are implying that cookbooks can offer scant benefit while one attempts preparation of a complex dish. (One should just make something without reading.)

Further, you suggest that a young man may be impeded in his to progress toward becoming a bon vivant through perusing reading material geared toward carnal pleasures. Do you honestly feel he is guaranteed better success by simply blindly groping his way to fulfillment, as it were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very clear analogy. You're just using too much of your imagination (and too little common sense and critical thinking) :beatnik:

Indeed, complicated food dishes and sexual techniques may begin as written text... and so do movies. However, the experience of the cookbook and the pictorial is far, far, faaaar less than the experience of the food and the intimacy. It just is. This also applies to movies. There is more creativity experienced by viewing and hearing films than by reading books. So, unless you're going to make a movie out of every book you read, the movie will always be better than the book :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your logic (and using your own former argument, which I stated was not a clear analogy) a movie about food is better than eating some (I saw Reservations - it isn't!) and a movie about sex is better than experiencing it (I've seen a few of those as well - they aren't!)

Perhaps you mean that a movie about one of these two subjects is better than a book of a similar theme. Sorry, probably not going to be the case either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By your logic (and using your own former argument, which I stated was not a clear analogy) a movie about food is better than eating some (I saw Reservations - it isn't!) and a movie about sex is better than experiencing it (I've seen a few of those as well - they aren't!)

Perhaps you mean that a movie about one of these two subjects is better than a book of a similar theme. Sorry, probably not going to be the case either.

Exactly. They are not. A cooking show is not better than eating the same meal. A movie about sex is not better than the real thing. Although both visual forms will always be better than books since they involve more than just writing.

Bottom line is, the comparisons don't make sense because they are not the same things, which is something I've stated before as well:

books =/= movies

:beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that betteris a subjective term. To you the movie is better because it entails more art forms. In this instance that is the definition of better (for you). To me better is what gives the most enjoyment - that is my definition. Hence the book is almost always better, as I am almost always going to enjoy the book more.

Oftentimes, if I have enjoyed a particular film, I'll watch the credits, to see if it was adapted from a book. If so, I'll read the book, and in most cases I'm pleasantly surprised at the additional details and plot lines that may have been left out of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. In this instance, "personal enjoyment" has nothing to do with whether movies are better than books. I cannot actually experience any of your "enjoyment" of anything. However, we can all see and hear the directors', actors', musicians', set designers', photographers' interpretation of a work of art. Hence, it is a fact that movies employ more art forms, more work, more detail, more money - pretty much more of everything in terms of art. Whereas books do not have that luxury - everyone experiences things so differently that there's no actual metric to gauge a book's art. Besides, movies employ writing as well, so they're already on par with books in that sense. Lastly, the comparison is very much flawed, so if there is a "problem," then it lies with comparing things that are unlike each other. You might as well say, "The taste of orange is better than touching plastic"... or "the book was better than the movie."

Is this the definition of "non sequitur"? :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that betteris a subjective term. To you the movie is better because it entails more art forms. In this instance that is the definition of better (for you). To me better is what gives the most enjoyment - that is my definition. Hence the book is almost always better, as I am almost always going to enjoy the book more.

Oftentimes, if I have enjoyed a particular film, I'll watch the credits, to see if it was adapted from a book. If so, I'll read the book, and in most cases I'm pleasantly surprised at the additional details and plot lines that may have been left out of the film.

I agree! :thumbsup: It's all subjective... :bow: :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. In this instance, "personal enjoyment" has nothing to do with whether movies are better than books. I cannot actually experience any of your "enjoyment" of anything. However, we can all see and hear the directors', actors', musicians', set designers', photographers' interpretation of a work of art. Hence, it is a fact that movies employ more art forms, more work, more detail, more money - pretty much more of everything in terms of art. Whereas books do not have that luxury - everyone experiences things so differently that there's no actual metric to gauge a book's art. Besides, movies employ writing as well, so they're already on par with books in that sense. Lastly, the comparison is very much flawed, so if there is a "problem," then it lies with comparing things that are unlike each other. You might as well say, "The taste of orange is better than touching plastic"... or "the book was better than the movie."

Is this the definition of "non sequitur"? :beatnik:

The root of the "is a book better than a movie" question lies in movies that are based upon books. This gives us a point of comparison. They are the same story, yet represented and interpreted in two different ways.

Perhaps the terminology is the problem here.

I believe what the debate really is is not whether the book was "better" than the movie, but rather if the interpretation of the book to the medium of film was a good (in one's personal opinion) interpretation. In a similar thought, one could compare a live action theatre play to the film based on said play. I had a theatre teacher who stated that film could never compare to live theatre because a screen is dead, it does not care whether you enjoy the experience, but live theatre allows one to be immersed in the story. That is one point of view, however it is a personal preference.

I see what you're saying however. You are correct in stating that movies employ more artistic aspects than a book does, that is a fact. Whether or not that makes a movie a more enjoyable experience than the book it was based on (in the cases of movies based upon books) is a personal opinion. However, one could also state that movies are a superior art form to books due to the amount of aspects of art that they employ and I am interpreting that as what you are attempting to point out. "Better" may be too vague of a term.

Also, in the instance of comparing a random movie to a random book with the two having no relation, say for example I compare the book Ender's Game to the movie Blade, the two are entirely different things and not comparable. However if I compare the book A Clockwork Orange to the movie A Clockwork Orange, there is a point of comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think there may be a bit of confusion between finding something personally enjoyable and stating one thing is better than another - different thing - based on personal enjoyment. I love books. I may not have as big of a book collection as I'd like (my father had a small library whereas I only have about 200), but I definitely have my favourites.

I'm not saying it's impossible to compare idea(s) relayed in two different mediums. Still, it is better to compare like-and-like in order to have a sort of "point of reference" (whether qualitative or quantitative). It may seem unlike to others, but I'd find it more apt to compare the movie Blade with the movie A Clockwork Orange than comparing A Clockwork Orange, the book, with A Clockwork Orange, the movie.

I mean, it's just easier and makes sense to relate film editing techniques, musical scores, acting styles, costumes and sets, etc. with each other since these are defined aspects of moviemaking. It doesn't work so well if one were to compare defined aspects of moviemaking to myriad ideas that pop up in individual readers' heads, which are vague and unclear by their imaginative nature. I cannot see what's in readers' heads. I can only see the effort of the writer/storyteller... and it'd probably be best/make more sense to compare the writing techniques and plot devices with that of other authors :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Rocky, you have hit the nail on the head ... I was trying to get there, but you have much better words.

BA, I do understand what you are saying.... I just wanted that vague "better" to be further clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...