a great movie vs. a great book

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

which of the two has the most profound impact on you?/which is "better"?

Poll Results

OptionVotes
book 30
movie 5


Zeno, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:14 (fifteen years ago)

book. there's a feeling when i finish a novel that is impossible to get with any other medium. the total immersion in something for such a long stretch of time. it's like coming up for air, intellectually/emotionally.

strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:18 (fifteen years ago)

Movie for immediate impact (but only a very few), book for long-term impact - so voted book.

ljubljana, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:18 (fifteen years ago)

also the connection with the artist -- however mediated through the characters -- is direct in a way that i also don't get with anything else. save maybe music, but it hits a totally different portion of the brain.

strongohulkingtonsghost, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:19 (fifteen years ago)

It's much easier for me to return to a book.

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:20 (fifteen years ago)

I think I've only ever deliberately re-watched about 5 movies (I'm not counting I-turned-on-the-TV-and-it-was-on).

ljubljana, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:22 (fifteen years ago)

"People often repeat the fallacy that “film is a passive medium”. The statement is usually elaborated like this: “When I read a story in a book, I have to use my imagination to conjure up what the characters look like, the sound of their voices, the appearance of their surroundings, the house, the landscape. When I see a movie, those things are all nailed down for me, so I don’t feel as involved.” What the person is describing are the most obvious aspects of a given story, that is, its physical properties. They are, in fact, the least interesting and least important components of a story. I do not read books in order to imagine the physical appearance of things.

Conversely, there are things which are typically spelled out in a book, but which must be imagined in a film. These are the intangibles, the important stuff; what are the characters thinking and feeling? Novelists have the advantage of being very explicit about the internal experience, and they indulge it, often to the detriment of the reader’s power to infer. Good writers are the ones who maneuver around this pitfall. A book’s ability to describe thoughts and feelings is a liability, not an advantage, if used to declaim its themes rather than evoke the desired consciousness in the reader.”
-Peter Chung, The State of Visual Narrative In Film And Comics
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/media-on-movies-vs-books-no-books-arent-automatically-better-because-you-imagine/

Zeno, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:25 (fifteen years ago)

books last longer so I'm inclined to vote for them. Basically we're talking about days' worth of stimulation vs a couple hours

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:27 (fifteen years ago)

in terms of "profoud impact" a book you are reading intensely will inform your whole mindset over an extended period of time, in a way that films can't. Films are concentrated, books are diffuse.

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:28 (fifteen years ago)

unless you re-watch the movie, which is easier than to re-read the book
xpost

Zeno, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:29 (fifteen years ago)

so are books the "best" story-telling art form because they are the slowest to digest?
might be.
but i don't think thats the only consideration.anyway, the images (and possible meaning behind them) in movies like Stalker or Tokyo Story can struck me for days as much as those of The Sound and The Fury or Anna Karenina.
though i would say that the number of truely outstanding masterpieces in cinema are rare compared to those of literature.

Zeno, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:41 (fifteen years ago)

though i would say that the number of truely outstanding masterpieces in cinema are rare compared to those of literature.

way cheaper/wasteful to produce too

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:48 (fifteen years ago)

er less wasteful

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:49 (fifteen years ago)

Ask Melville.

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:55 (fifteen years ago)

Writing Moby-Dick was like QT shooting Pulp Fiction -- shits and giggles for Herman and Mrs. M.

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:55 (fifteen years ago)

?

I'm referring to the amount of money and resources that go into making a movie - particularly yr average Hollywood movie - which is completely fucking insane and way outstrips publishing.

Hat Trick Swayze (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 15 September 2009 23:57 (fifteen years ago)

Favorite part of Reel Paradise was when Artsy Indie Producer Dad wants to show the Fijians Apocalypse Now Redux and his kid says, "no way, Dad, they should watch Jackass" and the kid is totally right. Jackass: the novelization by Kazuo Ishiguro would have tanked.

Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:12 (fifteen years ago)

Writing Moby-Dick was like QT shooting Pulp Fiction -- shits and giggles for Herman and Mrs. M.

― vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:55 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

what are you talking about?

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:13 (fifteen years ago)

Book, for what strongo said

Only Built for Cuban ILX ... (los blue jeans), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:15 (fifteen years ago)

movie - because it combines sound, visuals, and narrative for a more immersive experience (all else being equal)

new clusterfuck thread will eventually provide me a funny display name (sarahel), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:18 (fifteen years ago)

book all the way, for all the reasons mentioned here, especially the immersive quality

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:21 (fifteen years ago)

what are you talking about?

I was suggesting that writing books isn't as easy as Shakey said.

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:24 (fifteen years ago)

How can you misread "cheaper/less wasteful" as easier?

ice cr?m paint job (milo z), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:28 (fifteen years ago)

i could argue this either way, but there are a few books (karamazov, the plague, song of solomon, some montaigne essays) that really changed the way i think about life, the world, morality, mortality, all those Big Issues. that may be true for some movies too, but i can't think of any that have had quite that depth of personal impact.

flying squid attack (tipsy mothra), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:30 (fifteen years ago)

How can you misread "cheaper/less wasteful" as easier?

Willfully.

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:33 (fifteen years ago)

. . . maybe you should just pretend you meant Melville the director

Mr. Que, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:38 (fifteen years ago)

I can think of half a dozen books that changed my life, but not one movie that reached the same level of impact. I can think of hundreds of books that were central to my education. Movies? Not so much.

I can think of dozens of movies that have given me lasting images, snatches of dialogue, or songs, but somehow that gift just doesn't come up to what books have given me.

Aimless, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 00:45 (fifteen years ago)

Are any of these lifechanging books less than 150 pages? I just read Newjack and it's sort of a lifechanging book but it's more how the author's life changed when he became a pretend-real prison guard. I'm just sitting here reading about it, goin, "dude, you crazy, why are you putting out fires in Sing Sing on New Years?"

Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 01:03 (fifteen years ago)

Are any of these lifechanging books less than 150 pages?

Death in Venice

vulva eyes (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 01:04 (fifteen years ago)

book book book book book-book BOOK

dan m, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 01:05 (fifteen years ago)

less than 150 pages?

Tao Teh Ching

Aimless, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 01:10 (fifteen years ago)

photonovels are the highest art form imo
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7877/1046/1600/photonovelalien.jpg

velko, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 03:04 (fifteen years ago)

The MIT Press photobook of La Jetée?

Horace Silver Machine (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 03:06 (fifteen years ago)

Movies (save time)

A Patch on Blazing Saddles (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 04:56 (fifteen years ago)

I can't really afford to go to the movies these days, and tbh I'm not hugely into them, though on the other hand I am barely literate. What r vote?

oing oing oing (╓abies), Wednesday, 16 September 2009 05:13 (fifteen years ago)

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

System, Monday, 21 September 2009 23:01 (fifteen years ago)

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

System, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 23:01 (fifteen years ago)

I am one of the proud 5

iatee, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 23:05 (fifteen years ago)

books won in landslide but still - much more movie threads than book threads in ilx. for different reasons i guess.

Zeno, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 23:31 (fifteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.