Movies compared/contrasted to books

Tools    





The main difference is bad books aren't worth my time, and bad movies are worth all of it.
Huh?
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
I don't get any enjoyment out of a bad book.

I get lots enjoyment out of bad movies.

A pretty big distinction between the two for me.

i get the feeling, there have been a lot of books in my library i put down..but a bad or boring movie is pretty much the same, i thought "bird box" was trash but i watched it for humor, but then when i saw that i had forty minutes left i'm just like "meh, i could waste my time in a different way."



i get the feeling, there have been a lot of books in my library i put down..but a bad or boring movie is pretty much the same, i thought "bird box" was trash but i watched it for humor, but then when i saw that i had forty minutes left i'm just like "meh, i could waste my time in a different way."

By bad I mean amateurish, nonsensical, stupidly unpredictable, how-did-this-ever-get-made kinda bad. There is a joy watching a filmmaker struggle with the medium. There is something admirable about them piecing their junky bits and pieces together. If I'm not watching a legitimately great film, I want to be watching a 'bad' one. I am less interested in everything that comes in between.



Bad writing, on the other hand, just makes me angry. I've yet to read a so bad it's good book. As far as I can tell, they don't exist.



...Bad writing, on the other hand, just makes me angry. I've yet to read a so bad it's good book. As far as I can tell, they don't exist.
Try reading some pulpy detective stories from the 1930s. Some of those might qualify for so bad they're good. Not that I've read any myself, just a thought.



I like both books and movies. Books because they require you to use your imagination to "see" the story that you are reading in your mind. And movies that allow you to see the whole story in 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours vs the several hours it takes to read the book. I almost always prefer to have read the book before I watch the movie because once you have seen the whole story you can't un-see it to read the book. In all honesty it is mainly movies for me these days, because I don't have the time to read, but I can take a short two hour brake to watch a movie.



I would say movies and cinema evolved in the past few decades. In the past people were more into books.
People were competing in reading more and more books (not any kind of books of course) in order to know more and gather more knowledge and to become eventually intellectuals
Nowadays information is flowing from different directions not only from books or printed stuff.
I used to read more during my childhood, adolescence and after that, but later I was more attracted by movies.
I would say if a film is made by a great director it is almost the same as if you would read a good book.
I mean watching a film you may say that the information gets more rapidly into your brain since you visualize it, rather than reading a book, where you have to read more pages in order to read some descriptions - which in a movie can be seen in seconds.
Both have advantages and disadvantages, I like both reading and watching, or smelling the fresh or old paper from a book while reading.
Lately because of work I became more lazy and prefer a good movie over a book, since I can finish a movie in one night near a well deserved glass of wine or a beer lol
There's also the question of movies made after books and books written after movies....
I like the first ones better
I would say that reading a good book is the same as you would watch a movie made by Stanley Kubrick, or if you read some cheap best seller you bought with a few pennies down in the subway it is the same as if you would watch a low rated horror movie directed and produced by Eli Roth
__________________
“Everyone should believe in something. I believe I will have another coffee...”
― Unknown



CringeFest's Avatar
Duplicate Account (locked)
By bad I mean amateurish, nonsensical, stupidly unpredictable, how-did-this-ever-get-made kinda bad. There is a joy watching a filmmaker struggle with the medium. There is something admirable about them piecing their junky bits and pieces together. If I'm not watching a legitimately great film, I want to be watching a 'bad' one. I am less interested in everything that comes in between.



Bad writing, on the other hand, just makes me angry. I've yet to read a so bad it's good book. As far as I can tell, they don't exist.

Try reading popular novels, they're basically just page turners. They dont have a whole lot of philosophical depth, character development, or realistic depictions of life.


One I really liked that was just a cheesy page-turner was "the jaimaca inn", I think there is a movie based on it.


But yeah there is some writing that's just boring and stupid...theres also a lot of writing that's so technical you have to keep checking your phone/dictionary that it loses its relaxing and entertaining flow.



Try reading popular novels, they're basically just page turners. They dont have a whole lot of philosophical depth, character development, or realistic depictions of life.

I'm pretty on the record at other forums as not being much of a story guy. Stories don't get me to turn the page. Interesting, thoughtful writing is the only thing that keeps me engaged. I pretty much like endlessly long descriptive passages and that dreaded philosophical depth you are warning me about. Proust, Dickens and Dostoevsky sound like a charming time in the bath to me. Everything else bores me in about three pages.



When I read writing that I feel does not take its time to consider the importance of the words it uses, or anything beyond how to keep the story moving, is exactly when I get annoyed. I feel like I'm looking at a painter who didn't care how he applied his paint, or a musician who didn't care where his notes go. Or a filmmaker who ignores the potency of the moving image. Except I am way more lenient with those artforms.I am willing to spend time with an amateur painter, or musician, or director who is just willing to jump into the fray and be led by nothing but their urge to be creative, regardless of how much technical talent they actually have.



For whatever reason though, writers who aren't already at the top of their game, bore the pants off of me. I can't deal with them. I can't help but be a total snob in demanding only the best. I take no joy in the middling talents of the vast majority of published work. I think I'd be hard pressed to name ten novels from the last forty years I think are of any great value. I have no doubt this is a failing on my part. I'd love to find the beauty in written trash. Trash is my middle name. But I just can't help myself from turning up my nose at whatever bit of narrative fluff is currently on the best sellers list. Oprah's Book Club makes me want to commit hari-kari (even though she did tubthump for Faulkner once, but I don't really like him that much either)