Garden of Eden Escorts

Books: Why bother?

Jenesis

Fabulously Full Figured
Supporting Member
Jul 14, 2020
10,762
11,833
113
North Whitby Incalls
www.jenesis.ch
Because not all books, the majority of books are not made into movies.

Because some movies cut out interesting parts of the book.

Because movies don’t always make the entire book series and you can find out more about your favourite characters you saw in the one movie they made.

Should I go on?
 

thirdcup

Well-known member
Jan 4, 2005
1,323
122
63
Directly above the center of the earth
For one thing, movies have a time limit. Thus the movie can only show the most important parts of the plot.
Also, movies are what the director and the producer(s) envisioned.

The movies are not always faithful to the book. Who has seen The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy? In the movie, Zaphod Beeblebrox has two heads, one on top of the other. This is wrong. The book made it ultra clear his heads were beside each other, and thus they occasionally disagreed. In the movie, his lower head was more of a neck, an add on. And many of the adventures in the stolen spacecraft never made it to the big screen. Also the robot Marvin was not how I envisioned him. There was also a whole host of other minor characters that did not get any movie time.

Green screens and computer graphics have come a long way, but they still reflect the directors & producers vision. In the movie 2001, Stanley Kubrick consulted with Marvin Minsky, a computer guru of the time. Minsky convinced Kubrick that HAL should be represented by a single item, not a wall of blinking lights. But even so, the audience is being told how to imagine HAL.

In a book, people can always go back a few pages to confirm the events in the plot.

These are some of the reasons books win. Also, reading a book takes some mental effort. It is not served up for the audience to consume.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
34,409
8,315
113
Books: Why bother?

Just wait for the movie.

Discuss !!!
If books are the real story why would you deny yourself the pleasure? Movies can be very good but nothing matches the book. A great example is A Prayer for Owen Meanie. Everyone conjures a different voice for Owen and thus adds to the story.

An Actor's voice will only capture it for a small minority. The rest will be disappointed.

Add in the layers and depths. The actual thoughts of the characters on the page. There is no comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gcostanza

y2kmark

Class of 69...
May 19, 2002
18,936
5,379
113
Lewiston, NY
Because not all books, the majority of books are not made into movies.

Because some movies cut out interesting parts of the book.

Because movies don’t always make the entire book series and you can find out more about your favourite characters you saw in the one movie they made.

Should I go on?
Why bother, the OP needs to read Fahrenheit 451, or the movie....
 

luvyeah

🤡🌎
Oct 24, 2018
2,538
1,233
113
Good luck making that movie from a textbook!
 

Jasmina

Well-known member
Jun 11, 2013
2,181
1,527
113
Toronto
The type of stuff I read is rarely made into movies. Also, there is something to be said for developing a skill in visualisation. I don't know what, but I could probably find it in a book ;)
 

Insidious Von

My head is my home
Sep 12, 2007
44,342
10,413
113
I read mostly history and finance books. As for fiction, the exceptions that the film is better than the book are rare. The most obvious exception is LA Confidential.

I read The Name of the Rose in both English and Italian, it is a flawed film. I couldn't pass up the opportunity to watch Sean Connery and F Murray Abraham work together, it was also Ron Perlman's break out role. The first half was good but the second half devolved into a typical Hollywood revenge fantasy...I was pissed.

 
Last edited:

goldengirl

Active member
Jan 6, 2020
112
31
28
Most movies are two hours.

Most books take me 2 or 3 days to read.

Therefore only two hours of my life is wasted, as opposed to 20.
 

goldengirl

Active member
Jan 6, 2020
112
31
28
For one thing, movies have a time limit. Thus the movie can only show the most important parts of the plot.
Also, movies are what the director and the producer(s) envisioned.

The movies are not always faithful to the book. Who has seen The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy? In the movie, Zaphod Beeblebrox has two heads, one on top of the other. This is wrong. The book made it ultra clear his heads were beside each other, and thus they occasionally disagreed. In the movie, his lower head was more of a neck, an add on. And many of the adventures in the stolen spacecraft never made it to the big screen. Also the robot Marvin was not how I envisioned him. There was also a whole host of other minor characters that did not get any movie time.

Green screens and computer graphics have come a long way, but they still reflect the directors & producers vision. In the movie 2001, Stanley Kubrick consulted with Marvin Minsky, a computer guru of the time. Minsky convinced Kubrick that HAL should be represented by a single item, not a wall of blinking lights. But even so, the audience is being told how to imagine HAL.

In a book, people can always go back a few pages to confirm the events in the plot.

These are some of the reasons books win. Also, reading a book takes some mental effort. It is not served up for the audience to consume.
When I was a kid I read these three books and later watched the movies.

Book: 2001. Not so interesting.
Movie 2001. Kinda trippy at the end. One of my favourite movies ( except the end part ).

Book 2010. I liked this book better then book 2001. As a kid I read it twice.
Movie 2010. I also liked this movie. Not the best movie, but I remember watching it at least three times.

There was a third book by Arthur Clarke but I only read it once and forgot what happened. Must have sucked.

Book: Hitchhikers. I remember having this book but never opening it.
Movie: I was surprised that Zooey chick was in it, when Malhovich showed up I lost all interest and stopped trying to follow the plot. I kept it on for noise only. It sucked.
 

squiffynimrod

Well-known member
Feb 22, 2020
216
346
63
Here's your definitive answer: Books!

Read "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck, then watch the John Ford directed movie of the same name starring Henry Fonda.

Both excellent, but the book has way more texture. The ending stunned me and could never have been included in the 1940 movie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MissCroft

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,466
6,990
113
I read mostly history and finance books. As for fiction, the exceptions that the film is better than the book are rare. ...
I was about to argue against this but then I realized all the book based movies I've liked were simply because they didn't do a bad job.

Only exception I'd make is Princess Bride. The book is great but the cast in the movie was amazing.
 

explorerzip

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2006
8,085
1,292
113
You can take as much or as little time to read a book
Books can have multiple branding storylines and endings. Anyone remember Choose Your Own Adventure books?
No batteries or charging required
No operating system to keep updated
 

gcostanza

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2010
7,815
529
113

gcostanza

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2010
7,815
529
113
Most movies are two hours.

Most books take me 2 or 3 days to read.

Therefore only two hours of my life is wasted, as opposed to 20.
If you think reading is a waste of time, we can't help you.
 
Toronto Escorts