Are Books the Superior Form of Story Telling?

[Frog_LQ 924]

I just got through reading Eragon, I don't read near as often as I'd like to, so it took me a long time, but I finally got around to truly immersing myself in this book and going at it for hours. The book was truly amazing and a thoroughly enjoyed it. It got me thinking, this story really stuck with me in ways movies and TV can't seem to do. I truly felt like I connected with a lot of the characters and felt the suspense each moment. Though I love movies and TV, I just can't get this feeling like I'm part of the universe with them as with a good book.  

One of the reasons I think that may be is how much more exposition you get in a book about the universe. Comparing the Harry Potter books to the movies is a perfect example. So many of the cool little things described in the books are left out, those things that fill the universe and make it feel whole. Movies often only tell you what you need to know to advance the plot, and the universe is narrowed because of it. In Eragon I loved reading about all these smalls things about the universe, I felt like I was not just learning them to move the plot forward, but I was learning about this different world I was in.

People expect movies to be fast, and are bored when they go on for too long. I remember my Mom was complaining about how long the un-extended version of Lord of the Rings was, even though they cut out so much good stuff from the books! 

But I'm not just talking about book to movie adaptions. I find just in general, a well written book can make a universe come alive far better than any movie is able to. I really think that they could very well be the best way to tell a story.

[Kitty 126]

I like books more than movies because books tell the story better.

[Gramps 2,227]

I still fail to see how they can take massive books like Game of Thrones and hope to tell those stories in ten episodes. Agreed 100% Liam

[Agent P 2,480]

Eragon was an awesome series, one of my favourite.  

Yes, I definitely agree with you.

What the main problem is that in movies, you can't show tactile, olfactory or gustatory perception, which is a major deal in how you perceive the story. Sometimes visual or audio cues can be used as a substitute (people taking a deep breath of the fresh smell of flowers, red to represent a hot object, smiling when chewing food, etc.), but they only give a general idea.

Another problem is the main character's personal thoughts and feelings. Sure, feelings can be conveyed through facial expressions/body language, and thoughts can be expressed in a narrative voice-over manner, but there's nothing like understanding the main character personally while reading an exact depiction of what's going on in their brain. 

Also, you can let your imagination run wild when reading, especially when it comes to character descriptions. For example, "Ronaldo had messy, blonde hair that sat on his head. His face structure was rather small."

one could imagine this:

or this:

or something else entirely. However, in a movie or tv show, you don't imagine much. Everything is on the screen.

Movies and TV shows are passive entertainment, while a book is a way more mentally stimulating form of entertainment: you have to create the scenery in your head according to the information presented to you.

One of the main arguments that people use in favor of books is that movies adapted from books tend to omit details, however this isn't really that big a deal (it is, but a long tv series could easily fix that). 

There are movies that work best as simply movies and would just not work as a book, but there are very few of those, I know I know a few examples but I can't seem to remember them at the moment.

those were my two pennies' worth on this topic.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Agent P

[Shawnic 2,977]

I agree. I noticed how The Hunger Games movies differ from the books. The emotions and thoughts of Katniss (the lead character) aren't portrayed in the movies unlike the books. Actually, it's not the fault of the directors or script writers; it's just that books have the capacity to convey stuff that is actually difficult to show on screen. Like in many stories, the main character narrates the whole thing. This gives us an inside view of their mind, how they think and their actual character. Doing that in a movie is impossible. 

 

However, I won't say I don't like the movies either because the movies can well, let's just say a picture is worth a thousand words. There are certain things like visuals that makes me like the movies.

 In conclusion, I'd prefer reading as well as watching to get the best experience out of a story/franchise. 

[Agent P 2,480]

7 minutes ago, Master Flap said:

I agree. I noticed how The Hunger Games movies differ from the books. The emotions and thoughts of Katniss (the lead character) aren't portrayed in the movies unlike the books. Actually, it's not the fault of the directors or script writers; it's just that books have the capacity to convey stuff that is actually difficult to show on screen. Like in many stories, the main character narrates the whole thing. This gives us an inside view of their mind, how they think and their actual character. Doing that in a movie is impossible. 

 

However, I won't say I don't like the movies either because the movies can well, let's just say a picture is worth a thousand words. There are certain things like visuals that makes me like the movies.

 In conclusion, I'd prefer reading as well as watching to get the best experience out of a story/franchise. 

One thing in the Hunger Games franchise- in the movies, the main characters were portrayed by 20+ year olds (except for the 12-14 year olds) when in the book there's a reason why Collins chose the age range of 13-18 for the hunger games reaping, and I think the movies lost that aspect. I'm not going into details for obvious reasons. Otherwise the movies were pretty great.

[Shawnic 2,977]

1 minute ago, Agent P said:

One thing in the Hunger Games franchise- in the movies, the main characters were portrayed by 20+ year olds (except for the 12-14 year olds) when in the book there's a reason why Collins chose the age range of 13-18 for the hunger games reaping, and I think the movies lost that aspect. I'm not going into details for obvious reasons. Otherwise the movies were pretty great.

Actually, one hardly finds a movie where the actors are actually the age of the characters they play. In some extremes, 50 year olds play college students.  

[Agent P 2,480]

Just now, Master Flap said:

Actually, one hardly finds a movie where the actors are actually the age of the characters they play. In some extremes, 50 year olds play college students.  

Yeah, that's definitely true, but I really wanted to mention it for this series.

[S9y 51]

All forms of storytelling have their advantages and disadvantages, that being said I think movies can give you the best storytelling experience. There are a lot of little things in movies relating to visual mood and music that you can't get in books. For example, in the movie Megamind, the creators had the main female character wear different color dresses to symbolize that she was falling for the main character.

 I'd advise everyone to watch some movie commentaries, that talk about the little subtle things in a movie that affect mood. 

Also some things work well in movies, but wouldn't work in a book.  This is vice versa. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by S9y

[Insider 290]

I've always been a fast reader, especially if I really like the book. However, that means I tend to get bored with all of the tiny, minute details that they throw in books, and I usually skim over really over descriptive words. So at least for me, that argument of why books are better doesn't really work. I do really love that you can tell what the characters are actually thinking in books, while movies sometimes keep you guessing.

[Quack 1,568]

I think books are better. But movies can show a better picture of the setting and characters than in the person's mind. Which can be good and bad. Cuz maybe the reader pictured the main character or setting differently...

But when I read a book about cats I assume they're talking about American shorthairs.

[Frog_LQ 924]

3 hours ago, Master Flap said:

I agree. I noticed how The Hunger Games movies differ from the books. The emotions and thoughts of Katniss (the lead character) aren't portrayed in the movies unlike the books. Actually, it's not the fault of the directors or script writers; it's just that books have the capacity to convey stuff that is actually difficult to show on screen. Like in many stories, the main character narrates the whole thing. This gives us an inside view of their mind, how they think and their actual character. Doing that in a movie is impossible. 

 

However, I won't say I don't like the movies either because the movies can well, let's just say a picture is worth a thousand words. There are certain things like visuals that makes me like the movies.

 In conclusion, I'd prefer reading as well as watching to get the best experience out of a story/franchise. 

I'm not at a saying I don't like movies or they can't be just as enjoyable. I love movies. But what I'm getting at is books are they best at really getting you in the story and indulging in the lore of the universe.

2 hours ago, S9y said:

All forms of storytelling have their advantages and disadvantages, that being said I think movies can give you the best storytelling experience. There are a lot of little things in movies relating to visual mood and music that you can't get in books. For example, in the movie Megamind, the creators had the main female character wear different color dresses to symbolize that she was falling for the main character.

 I'd advise everyone to watch some movie commentaries, that talk about the little subtle things in a movie that affect mood. 

Also some things work well in movies, but wouldn't work in a book.  This is vice versa. 

Movies can have a lot of advantage for thrills and emotional manipulation. But I don't think that necessarily makes the story better or fuller. There's more to a movie than just the story i the thing, unlike a book where it is purely story.

2 hours ago, Insider said:

I've always been a fast reader, especially if I really like the book. However, that means I tend to get bored with all of the tiny, minute details that they throw in books, and I usually skim over really over descriptive words. So at least for me, that argument of why books are better doesn't really work. I do really love that you can tell what the characters are actually thinking in books, while movies sometimes keep you guessing.m

I'm not at all a fast reader. I had been reading that book since last June :P.

[Insider 290]

4 hours ago, Frog_LQ said:

 

I'm not at all a fast reader. I had been reading that book since last June :P.

When I was 13 I read a 300+ page book in under 5 hours one day. It was really good.

[Zac 129]

They're limited to the imagination of the reader.

[Frog_LQ 924]

42 minutes ago, Insider said:

When I was 13 I read a 300+ page book in under 5 hours one day. It was really good.

A book averages 250-300 words per page that's 75,000-90,000 words for a book that size. If my math is correct you read at about 300 words per minute...  

[Agent P 2,480]

I read Blood Of Olympus in one night even though it wasn't even that good compared to the rest of the series, but I had gotten attached to the characters. (About 550 pages)

[S9y 51]

Maybe video games would be the best form of storytelling, since you are part of the story. 

[Insider 290]

10 hours ago, Frog_LQ said:

A book averages 250-300 words per page that's 75,000-90,000 words for a book that size. If my math is correct you read at about 300 words per minute...  

Haha I literally did not put it down the entire time. That's pretty cool though, I now know my wpm speed. Of course, that's for novels. Textbooks are a lot slower cause they aren't interesting. 

[Frog_LQ 924]

1 hour ago, S9y said:

Maybe video games would be the best form of storytelling, since you are part of the story. 

I considered that, as they are my favorite form of story telling. But I don't think they're the best. For one, the story is always divided up in video games in to breaks where you are playing, which does slow it down. They also suffer (most of the time) from the same issue with movies, where you can't experience the thoughts of the characters like you can in a book.

[Emfoofoo 1,389]

books are definitely better than movies but video games are definitely up there as well. depending on the video game you play, the story can be very rich and well written and developers can choose the perfect character for you to play as as you experience the story.

one of the problems i have is where directors totally butcher the plot and characters of the book, like they didn't even read the book at all and just went by a short biography that was written by them. shailene (or however you spell her name) woodley was an example of this when she played tris in divergent: i didn't think she represented tris correctly at all and i probably would've been happier if the director chose another actress to play tris. 

[Insider 290]

What do you guys think about music telling a story? Some songs tell stories, granted they're short, but I think they can be effective as well. Especially because they stick in our memory and influence our emotions.

[Gramps 2,227]

I'm currently reading a 1200 page book

[Frog_LQ 924]

On 3/31/2016 at 7:26 PM, Insider said:

What do you guys think about music telling a story? Some songs tell stories, granted they're short, but I think they can be effective as well. Especially because they stick in our memory and influence our emotions.

Music can surely tell a story, but it's certainly not the superior form :P. The stories are normally extremely open ended as well, and often lack proper thought to plot. Rather music is all about manipulating feelings to make people believe there is more to it then there is (I've studied a bit of music theory).

[Echo 746]

Dangit Frog, you've made me want to read a book instead of doing the homework I should be doing

 

In my opinion no doubt that books are better than movies, they can capture so much more detail and side plot that wouldn't work in a movie. Because movies cost lots of money to produce, and so a constant focus is a plot that the audience will pay for, but that's not necessarily the case with books, they're usually just an idea the author had and wanted to write about or expand on it

[Agent P 2,480]

5 hours ago, Frog_LQ said:

On 31/03/2016 at 4:56 AM, Insider said:

What do you guys think about music telling a story? Some songs tell stories, granted they're short, but I think they can be effective as well. Especially because they stick in our memory and influence our emotions.

Music can surely tell a story, but it's certainly not the superior form :P. The stories are normally extremely open ended as well, and often lack proper thought to plot. Rather music is all about manipulating feelings to make people believe there is more to it then there is (I've studied a bit of music theory).

I feel music isn't about telling a story. You could sing something to 100,000 people and they would all sing along for a different reason. That's the beauty of music. That's also why music lyrics are rarely specific, so everyone can relate.

 

imo music is not a way to express a story, it's a medium to express the feelings you felt. That's why everyone remembers a different experience, what that feeling induced in them meant to them.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Agent P