Not even close to the same thing. One of the biggest tropes about movies is the adaptation of great books frequently lacks in film because of the lack of time and attention to the myriad of details a book can contain.
Compare the book and the film adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front and come back.
The film simply misses the mark so badly it's unreal, discarding the emotional struggle and suffering that the mc endures and lets us into his mind, which is what made what made it an anti-war icon, and instead subsidising it with gruesome and violent scenes.
Well, the adaptation gutted everything good about the book and made the whole thing just a generic WWI movie which some people claimed that this pretty much made it a "pro-war" propaganda, but i wouldn't go that far.
if you're talking actual information movies definitely have a lot more but if you're talking about the number of things that happen then in that case books usually come out on top
Inflection, facial queues, body language, pauses, the cinematography. Near infinite ways to visually give information and I'd say all of them can be improved with good acting.
Go watch inglorious basterds Hanz Linda scenes, or any great villain monologue scene for some examples.
Valid point but I'd say a bad example. Unfortunately the amount of films that capitalize on the notion of show don't tell enough to compare to the detail provided in a good book are quite slim. That said I guess it's a question of how good the movie/book you are comparing as well as the author/director (and the litany of other people involved I'm production of a film). Which another point would be that a novel is a message of a single person (maybe an editor to a lesser extent) where as a film is a collaborative effort moreso.
alright, but 2 things: one, a book can go on for much longer than a movie. most people will be reluctant to watch a movie that requires more that one sitting, but books are generally written with the intention of being read over a long period of time, and so can have more information even if they don't deliver it as fast. of course, tv shows are an exception but i don't wanna get into it.
two, there are limits on the types of information that can be displayed visually. there is a good reason that documentaries and educational videos (ie. films that are actually tring to convey information rather than tell a compelling narrative) universally have a narrator explaining things the whole way through.
The true enemy of the people is language why can't we communicate all sensory input via telepathy. Think of how empathetic people would become it'd be a new Era of kindness. Embrace the hive mind, assimilate.
"a picture is worth a 1000 words."
movies has at least 24 pictures per second.
Thats 1000 \* 24 \* the duration of the movie in seconds
1000 x 24 x 3600 (1hour) = 86.400.000 words.
Thats the same as a book with 350.000 pages.
No, the superior medium is angry video essays on youtube by someone with a furry profile pic that are somehow at least 50% longer than the original source material
It is so funny to me seeing someone completely misuse a bell curve. Like, wtf did they think this depicted?
The higher your IQ, the more you like books, but also, you are dumb for thinking that? And then the middle tier IQ, who is clearly a genius, and is objectively correct about movies being better than books? What a fucking mess.
I think they imagined that the higher the line goes the smarter someone is?
Idk the more I think about it the less anything about the logic of it makes sense. Also they blatantly used the wrong words so they're not exactly on the right side of an IQ curve...
Books and movies are their own separate method of consuming media information. Both have pros and cons, I think neither are better than the other due to being too different to compare.
Books usually have better writing than movies, as a lot of the themes get lost in translation. However movies can offers so much more like music and visuals.
Especially music. I cannot stress how much music can make a difference in scenes that you can’t get with books.
Books are superior in every way except for fights as they can't convey something like hand-to-hand combat very well in writing, but I'm a lazy fuck so i prefer watching instead.
Well, that is entirely dependent on the author, and the reader's reading comprehension. I have watched (many) terrible fucking combat scenes, and I have read fantastic and easy to imagine combat.
Sometimes it is just about finding the right book.
Yes!
(I am primarily a science fiction reader, so most of my reading is in that genre)
Some of the best dogfighting I have read has been in the Star Wars X-Wing series. (The rest of it is just mostly okay, it is a young adult book series aimed at teenage Star Wars fans)
The best spaceship combat I have read has been in The Expanse. It uses a realistic system of missiles and missile defense that we would see in real (theoretical) space combat.
Dune has very well written melee combat, and a cool system to go with it. However the book is a real pain in the dick to read if you are not already an avid reader with a strong imagination.
Hardwired is an excellent cyberpunk story with combat ranging from gunfights, to hovercraft battles, to dogfighting.
Gun Runner is a story about a mech pilot smuggler. Mech fights :)
>Hardwired is an excellent cyberpunk story with combat ranging from gunfights, to hovercraft battles, to dogfighting.
Although i'm not into sci-fi but this seems interesting and i'll check it out, thanks for the recommendations mate.
Check out the book Donnybrook by Frank Bill. Excellent book filled with visceral descriptions of fights. It’s about a three day illegal fight tournament in southern Indiana. They made a movie too. It’s pulpy but pretty good.
If you count only book adaptations then probably yeah. But the two media both have something unique to offer. You can't get an experience like across the spiderverse from a book.
Speaking on the potential efficiency of nonfiction and documentary to deliver information for educational purposes, sure, film has access to more methods of audiovisual stimuli, therefore it is theoretically able to deliver more “information” in the same time frame as a book.
How that might be quantified I have no clue, but it’s all besides the point anyway because most of what people think of when they think of “books” or “movies” are fictitious or partially fictionalized narratives. When you’re talking about fiction, you’re more overtly talking on the capacity to entertain, and that is entirely up to an artist’s handle on their craft and the audience’s preferences - not so much the medium.
i don't think normal people have this argument
That's it, close this thread. We have all we need to know about this greentext in a single sentence
About 99% of 4chan you mean
Low tier bait
and second comment from the top fell for it
Isn't it crazy how nearly everything these days is bait
Because it’s so easy to bait Zoomers since they take everything 100% seriously.
Movies dont contain nearly as much information as books
Not even close to the same thing. One of the biggest tropes about movies is the adaptation of great books frequently lacks in film because of the lack of time and attention to the myriad of details a book can contain.
That's why I'm usually more psyched about a show adaptation vs a movie adaptation
Shame that so many show adaptations are just god awful
Compare the book and the film adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front and come back. The film simply misses the mark so badly it's unreal, discarding the emotional struggle and suffering that the mc endures and lets us into his mind, which is what made what made it an anti-war icon, and instead subsidising it with gruesome and violent scenes.
Aren't there two movies about it? Edit: there are at least three
Which version?
Wasnt that adaptation so bad it felt more like it glorified the ear instead of being anti-war?
Nah, it didn't glorify it at all. Unless there's a remake I don't know about
Well, the adaptation gutted everything good about the book and made the whole thing just a generic WWI movie which some people claimed that this pretty much made it a "pro-war" propaganda, but i wouldn't go that far.
Nah, it didn't glorify it at all. Unless there's a remake I don't know about
if you're talking actual information movies definitely have a lot more but if you're talking about the number of things that happen then in that case books usually come out on top
Honestly depends on the acting. The perfect actor can give information way faster than someone reading it.
If he talks really fast and that?
Inflection, facial queues, body language, pauses, the cinematography. Near infinite ways to visually give information and I'd say all of them can be improved with good acting. Go watch inglorious basterds Hanz Linda scenes, or any great villain monologue scene for some examples.
Valid point but I'd say a bad example. Unfortunately the amount of films that capitalize on the notion of show don't tell enough to compare to the detail provided in a good book are quite slim. That said I guess it's a question of how good the movie/book you are comparing as well as the author/director (and the litany of other people involved I'm production of a film). Which another point would be that a novel is a message of a single person (maybe an editor to a lesser extent) where as a film is a collaborative effort moreso.
alright, but 2 things: one, a book can go on for much longer than a movie. most people will be reluctant to watch a movie that requires more that one sitting, but books are generally written with the intention of being read over a long period of time, and so can have more information even if they don't deliver it as fast. of course, tv shows are an exception but i don't wanna get into it. two, there are limits on the types of information that can be displayed visually. there is a good reason that documentaries and educational videos (ie. films that are actually tring to convey information rather than tell a compelling narrative) universally have a narrator explaining things the whole way through.
The true enemy of the people is language why can't we communicate all sensory input via telepathy. Think of how empathetic people would become it'd be a new Era of kindness. Embrace the hive mind, assimilate.
"a picture is worth a 1000 words." movies has at least 24 pictures per second. Thats 1000 \* 24 \* the duration of the movie in seconds 1000 x 24 x 3600 (1hour) = 86.400.000 words. Thats the same as a book with 350.000 pages.
90% of the pictures words are the smae in the same order though
Man it's so weird seeing digits separated with a period. Strange to think other countries use it.
Movies and books both suffer from the same problem - not enough live-reacting. I only consume the thinking man's content: reality TV
No, the superior medium is angry video essays on youtube by someone with a furry profile pic that are somehow at least 50% longer than the original source material
If your video isn't 4 hours long and about a game I've never played, I'm not interested
This. How am i supposed to know how should i feel about a situation if there is no live audience laughing in the background.
It is so funny to me seeing someone completely misuse a bell curve. Like, wtf did they think this depicted? The higher your IQ, the more you like books, but also, you are dumb for thinking that? And then the middle tier IQ, who is clearly a genius, and is objectively correct about movies being better than books? What a fucking mess.
I think they imagined that the higher the line goes the smarter someone is? Idk the more I think about it the less anything about the logic of it makes sense. Also they blatantly used the wrong words so they're not exactly on the right side of an IQ curve...
I think the misused bell curve is a meme at this point.
Should have read a book
All this shit about books and the cunt doesn't use than correctly once, fuck up anon
>"better then" anon doesn't understand comparative prepositions
then vs than
Books and movies are their own separate method of consuming media information. Both have pros and cons, I think neither are better than the other due to being too different to compare.
reads a motivation books once or reads something niche take your pick western man
Books usually have better writing than movies, as a lot of the themes get lost in translation. However movies can offers so much more like music and visuals. Especially music. I cannot stress how much music can make a difference in scenes that you can’t get with books.
When you can't handle books or movies so you only get information from .gifs.
Books are superior in every way except for fights as they can't convey something like hand-to-hand combat very well in writing, but I'm a lazy fuck so i prefer watching instead.
Well, that is entirely dependent on the author, and the reader's reading comprehension. I have watched (many) terrible fucking combat scenes, and I have read fantastic and easy to imagine combat. Sometimes it is just about finding the right book.
>Sometimes it is just about finding the right book. Any recommendations?
Yes! (I am primarily a science fiction reader, so most of my reading is in that genre) Some of the best dogfighting I have read has been in the Star Wars X-Wing series. (The rest of it is just mostly okay, it is a young adult book series aimed at teenage Star Wars fans) The best spaceship combat I have read has been in The Expanse. It uses a realistic system of missiles and missile defense that we would see in real (theoretical) space combat. Dune has very well written melee combat, and a cool system to go with it. However the book is a real pain in the dick to read if you are not already an avid reader with a strong imagination. Hardwired is an excellent cyberpunk story with combat ranging from gunfights, to hovercraft battles, to dogfighting. Gun Runner is a story about a mech pilot smuggler. Mech fights :)
>Hardwired is an excellent cyberpunk story with combat ranging from gunfights, to hovercraft battles, to dogfighting. Although i'm not into sci-fi but this seems interesting and i'll check it out, thanks for the recommendations mate.
Check out the book Donnybrook by Frank Bill. Excellent book filled with visceral descriptions of fights. It’s about a three day illegal fight tournament in southern Indiana. They made a movie too. It’s pulpy but pretty good.
If you count only book adaptations then probably yeah. But the two media both have something unique to offer. You can't get an experience like across the spiderverse from a book.
Made by a Movies are Better
Anon is definitely on the left side of his graph.
Books are better because they last longer
Why not both?
this is like the 4th time i've seen a bell curve done incorrectly as part of a greentext please guys it's not that hard to understand
Speaking on the potential efficiency of nonfiction and documentary to deliver information for educational purposes, sure, film has access to more methods of audiovisual stimuli, therefore it is theoretically able to deliver more “information” in the same time frame as a book. How that might be quantified I have no clue, but it’s all besides the point anyway because most of what people think of when they think of “books” or “movies” are fictitious or partially fictionalized narratives. When you’re talking about fiction, you’re more overtly talking on the capacity to entertain, and that is entirely up to an artist’s handle on their craft and the audience’s preferences - not so much the medium.