« more discussions

• 

  Books are far more enjoyable than movies.

  books are not only enjoyable but also useful, and practical than movies.
  First, the reader is the hero to picturize and feel the charactor, sceneries and the every single non-verbal element of the situation.
  
  Second, the reader is directly in touch with book e.g. hands grasipng, eye movement, and brain activities, all of which are the means of keeping you attentive and concious.
  
  Third, reading means sweeping lines of words, expressions, clauses and sentences under one's eyes. In such case one get more improved in sentence combination and spelling methods.
  
  The last and best, book is silent and grants fruit in cozy and comfortable way.
  
  Thank you,
  
  Khaan as Peregrine Falcon
  

  Peregrine Falcon started this discussion 4 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  TarheelBookworm 

  I agree. In books that I especially love I have my own pictures of the characters and usually am disappointed by the representation of these characters in movies.
  
  Also the person making the movies gets to decide what to cut out of the book and what made it into the movie. Naturally I don't always agree. For instance I LOVED Peter Jackson's LOTR movies but didn't like that he changed the character of Arwin. It hasn't stopped me from watching them over and over.
  
  I also have found that I enjoy audio books as it allows my imagination to roam. When I am not reading the words myself I get to make pictures in my mind much easier. Maybe it's because I'm getting old!

  posted 3 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  PlumFun01 

  I'm a complete book and movie junkie...Every night I have to decide what to do- watch a movie or read a book! But more often than not the book will win out...

  posted 3 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Splen 

  Books are far more enjoyable than movie, because i hold them close to me every where, with movies you can't sleep with it, books always win.

  posted 3 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  missTG19 

  This is so true! Sometimes i hate how they lacerate a book just to fit it into a movie. When they do this they cut out the most interesting and gripping things that attracts you most to the book!

  posted 3 months ago. ( reply )

• 

  Dr. J. G. (edited)

  All of the above is true - and yet there is more than one side to this.
  
  Quite often books that are too difficult to read have been turned into films that are not only spectacular, but aided by the characters come alive due to the actor, the screenplay, the camera, the lighting; they are closer, more accessible, human.
  
  And, too, you really have to see films as another art form - when they are badly made blame the makers, not the medium. There are many well made, and not too many can imagine reading those as books.
  
  Bicycle Thief, for example. Many examples if one decides to make that list.

  posted 1 month ago. ( reply )

• 

  Jina P 

  Yes, that is absolutely true. I think books are much more descriptive and gives you a good picture of the scene.

  posted 11 days ago. ( reply )

• 

  Lori C 

  So many wonderful comments! I especially like Dr. J.G.'s comments on the art form. I read Patriot Games before I saw the movie and after the book, the movie was just terrible. I hated it. If I hadn't read the book and totally loved it, I would've liked the movie, as I am a huge Harrison Ford fan. However, the movie completely vacated the book, in my opinion. If they had changed the name to something other than Patriot Games, I might've liked it.

  posted 7 days ago. ( reply )

• To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top