Who agrees with me-film/tv adaptations of books?

M

mab7689

New member
After a discussion with friends about film/tv adaptations of books, one of them said 'id rather see the film because reading is too much hard work.' Although I didn't reply, i've always been of the opinion (some may think me arrogant and judgmental here) that when someone would rather watch the film/tv than read the book, it suggests a degree of intellectual deficiency. I've always been of the persuasion that the book is far better.
Who agrees/What do you think?
 
I have to agree with you. Though, I like to read the book and then watch the movie afterwords.

Though in some cases watching the movie first is better. Shakespeare, Poe, and Twain can be examples for some people. Sometimes the older English can be hard to understand.
 
I agree that the book is better than the movie... I'm not so sure if it suggests anything about a person's intelligence, though -- maybe their imagination. Books are usually better because you get much more detail, there isn't anything cut out like they have to do for movies, you get a better understanding, and you can use your own creativity to help form the story whereas in a movie it's kind of laid out and you can't influence it.
 
i think its allways better to read the book. you get a lot more detail and a different perspective that tv and movie cant give you. its a more personal experience to read the book cause (to me) the reader can feel like they are a part of the book.
most people are just too lazy to read and dont want to give some time out of their day to reading. i personally love to read and find that all books are better than their movies. (although i havent read the notebook yet ;) )
 
the book is better .cause you can have a wild imanation that a movie cant ever replace. movie special effects cant do everything yet.
 
I kind of agree. I think people who would choose the movie version without any interest in the book also lack imagination. Of all the people I know that are like that tend to go for quick gratification type things too. I have seen movies that I really liked and later learned they were based on books. But as soon as I read the book, all of the sudden the movie seemes kind of dumb. Or more simple. There's just so much more emotions involved when reading a book. I read about 3 hours a day and own over 2000 books. We have 2 spare bedrooms, each wall lined with book stuffed shelves from floor to cieling. I love it.

And don't worry about coming across as arrongant. Its not like your running for office and saying everything you said here in a public meeting! That's the best part of sites like these!
 
Yep they sound lazy. Reading is fun if they would only give it a chance. There are good books and there are awful books, one shouldn't stop reading just because some authors are bad. I love both books and movies and I would rather have both. I couldn't imagine living in a world without them, especially books.

You don't need batteries for books, you can take them anywhere your heart desires. You can't say the same for dvds. Movie fun lasts 2 hours at the most, but you can reread a book over and over again. The fun doesn't stop after only 2 hours with books. Your imagination can take you everywhere when you read, with movies your imagination is limited by what the actors and director were able to achieve in that movie.
 
What's really sad is that more and more teachers are letting their students write reports on movies rather than books, and the students are too lazy to even watch the movie! I've seen many of them here asking for someone to write their reports for them. I worry that reading and writing may become lost skills (texting "omg lol brb" on your cell phone doesn't count).
 
Back
Top