Funnily, I dont have the attention span to watch films.... I'll get bored and wander off (if it's at home) or just fidget incessantly if it's at the cinema.

Books are, and always will be, my first love. Only food and sex are equal for me!

I'll cut an inevitably long tirade on the wonders of books short here!

I agree with Spearthrower on the wonders of books. Throughout school, and college, I constantly read and comprehended 2-3 levels above anyone my age. But to sit down with a novel of any kind, even one of deep interest, could take me a lifetime. That's why I'm one to deal more with movies. While I can read and understand much the same as anyone else, I can't always "get the picture in my mind" of what the writer is intending. I lose speed and interest in reading. If it's a manual for a program or device, I can become enveloped in it so much as to lose all track of time. I have to admit myself that I still have not figured out why this is with me, and I may never. My wife, or even my brother or mother, can easily sit down with a book and as easily get lost in it. I get more out of seeing than reading. I guess that's why I did well in school and college without using my books much at all. But as my wife says, I'm fairly weird!

the University of California, San Diego. were you thinking of something else?

I have contended for most of my (now getting long) adult life that books and movies are 2 DIFFERENT media, with different strengths and weaknesses, and it is a mistake to compare them too closely. Both entertainment and storytelling, maybe not apples and oranges, but certainly...er...apples and cherries.

I probably favor books. Books generally do detail and thought processes, and character internal point of view better. They handle vast scope of events better, because they essentially have no budget. They are weak in some ways on scene setting and evoking action.

Movies are great on scenes and action, even if the action is the tension between the characters in a room. With the advent of CGI, some of the limits of depicting scope of action have been removed. They are, however, pretty much limited in 3 ways: 1) they have a budget, 2) There is only enough storytelling time in even a very long movie for an involved short story, a novella, or a very, very edited version of a medium novel (preferably one that was written with eventual movie production in mind), 3) they are generally limited to 3rd person perspective.

That having been said, I am a great fan of movies as their own medium. I'm one of the few people I know who insists that if you are at all interested in the subject of a movie, you need to see it first time in a theater, its intended venue, even though DVD rental is cheaper. Anyone who disagrees needs to go to a retrospective and watch the first 5 minutes of Star Wars, or IJ and Raiders of the Lost Ark, in the theater. I say this with a 51 inch screen sitting in my rec room.

drrider

Reader here. I typically read one or two novels per week.



Agreed. Comics are sort of a midway point between the two mediums, as well, I think. Games, too, perhaps, if we want to get into more interactive media.



Books also require a more active participation from the user than films do -- a strength, I think.



Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I do refuse to watch films in other than their intended aspect ratio. Cutting the sides off of a film so that it fits a TV screen is very offensive to me. It's like cutting the legs off Michaelangelo's David so that it will fit in your house. It's an insult to the artist.

Another important point for me is that you can carry books(important for me as I have spent a considerable portion of my life travelling)! You can also read them in the toilet..... you can take them on a boat..... you can sit on the beach with them..... you can while away the hours at an airport... you can give meaningful ones to people you care about.... you can find hidden treasures, snippets of the wisdom of the ages in them.... you can learn and grow from them.

Books, even more so than dogs, are a man's best friend.... ok they're not as cuddly, but they don't sniff your girlfriend's crotch or shit on your lawn either.

I'd mostly rather watch paint dry than watch the utter pap that's so often screened in the cinema these days... yes there are real quality movies, but more and more I just see pap and propaganda.... drivel for the masses to lap up. Very few films challenge you to think, and while there are times when you need to turn off the grey lump in your head.... I wouldn't recommend making a habit of not thinking!

Reading requires active thought, not simply receptivity. Reading requires you to think critically, analytically while doing so for films generally undermines the entertainment value of them.

Some books have been gateways to new worlds for me.... figuratively speaking, opening my mind to new ideas and possibilities.... books are imbued with subtle, hidden meanings that you strive to locate and to digest. If it's not up-front and in your face in a film, it's generally lost.

I am forced to accept that I ended up doing what I said I wouldn't and ranting on for ages!! and also that someone already posted the most important point - the two medias are incomparable.

It totally depends on my mood.

There is nothing like the depth of experience that a great novel will give you and nothing like the perspective that a great mind can offer in factual texts either.

There is also nothing like the felling you get while immersed in the audio visual thrill ride of a truly great movie, nor the touch of actuality that a well crafted and balanced documentary can give.

So I have to say both, for their own unique reasons.

PS "a picture says a thousand words" but also a very few words can speak of an idea that is impossible to picture.

It depends on the author, some have a gift that makes characters feel almost real.
same is true for movies though.

I find some movies and books so weak they have to be put aside.
I just hope you find a media to enjoy.

Marcus.

Movies have loads to compete with though, but that doest mean there aren't great movies,

Marcus

The only books i have ever read, are the ones i was forced to read while going through my school years.

Not that i have anything against reading, i mean, i read all the time in my job but i do suspect excessive reading would have to have a detrimental effect on your eyes.... apart from the known effects of maintaining a static focus that is.

I've read an average of 2 books a week for the last 20 years.... and my eye-sight is perfect!

I'd be surprised if reading actually caused any more damage than staring at a brightly lit screen!

Reading is not somthing that interests me much, and if you were to ask me had i read any books that impressed me in my life, well, only one book truely impressed me, and that was 'empire of the sun', based on a true story. Also i have read the bible several times and my all time favourite story there was when Jesus drew a line in the sand in defence of the prostitute, very excellently depicted in one of the flashbacks in that movie 'the passion'.



That's good. But since so many 'book worms' wear glasses, it easily gives one the impression that reading must be bad for your eyes. Certainly bright computer screens could be more damaging as well.

I used to read the bible if i couldn't sleep! Nowdays if i cannot sleep i just listen to music with my earphones. I love that soundtrack to the movie 'Man on fire' That is relaxing music, beautiful, also the soundrack for 'the man from snowy river' is totally awesome. Some of my other favourite music comes from other movie soundtracks as well, conventional music is mostly just crap in comparison.