• Of course they are

    You can use your imagination but in the movie you just sit there watching them take thing out that was in the book for some more action that doesn't make it better just makes you sit there longer and get hungrier so you go and get something to eat so you get even fatter and lazier so you won't want to read the other book you just want to watch another movie.

  • Books have an delightful feel to them

    Books a great effect on the reader....One who likes to read books can only understand this as books have a feeling thats just can't be expressed in words......The most important is The Touch.
    Also books don't affect your eye sight. And books are released much before than the movie. Many movies are inspired from the books.

  • Books are way better than the movie

    Books you can be the person or imagine what they like. Movies you just sleep and get fatter. I respect people who like movies better than books unless you think people who like books better are just trying to act smart. People can like books and not just to act smart.

  • Books is better than movies

    Movies is just for lazy people, who does not like reading . Sometimes movies like a parody of the book and movies do not tell everything from the books and movie is an imagination of director. When you read a book, you can creat your own movie through imagination. Also, books allow you to feel author emoution, his feelings. Books show your intelect. For exaple in russian language, reading helps people make less grammer mistakes, because your vision helps you to avoid it.

  • Books are boring, and time consuming.

    Jimmy was wearing his red shirt, and Chicago Blackhawks hat. He had his book bag, and hopped on the bus to school. The bus then drove into a house.

    Now if that were a video it would be a vine because it would be so short. It would also be a lot better because you can see the bus go into the house. Also seeing a video allows there to be less questioning. Such as Where did the bus enter the house? Did it go through the house? Did the bus take a lot of damage? So on.

  • Books are not better than movie because its easy to remember the thoughts that u watch in a movie rather than a book

    Another think is that if u say somebody to read a book to grow up his knowledge than he he will not take interest but a person easily agree to watch a movie so we can say watching is great than reading a book happy new year happy is m

  • No they are different

    Asking whether one alternative is 'better' than another without prefacing the question with a definitnion of 'better' and and other other clarifying criteria is pointless. What is the criteria for distinguising between 'worst' and 'best' and all points in between (e.G. 'better')? Better to whom? If we are restricting the sense of 'better' to one's personal tastes or preferences then the question should instead be, 'Do you like books better than movies?'

  • No way, movies are better.

    Sure books are cool, but film allows for more interpretation. It's not lazy to watch a movie instead of read a book, it's just a different medium. Sure, some films like The Fast & the Furious aren't art, they're just cheap entertainment. Do you really mean to tell me 50 Shades of Grey isn't porn?

    Just because books are longer doesn't make them better. If you went "yes", then go to a movie store or netflix and watch at least 3 of the following films.
    - Gone Baby Gone
    - Magnolia
    - Being John Malkovich
    - Donnie Darko
    - 2001: A Space Odyssey
    - The Grey

    Now, I can understand if you still think books are better even after these films. That's not why I pointed them out. I pointed them out because you're saying films are for lazy people. Well here's some amazing films that are multi-interpretable and require just as much of a brain as books.

  • Movies are not for lazy people. On the other hand, books are not boring.

    Saying one is better than the other is like comparing photography and paintings. They both capture something different from the other. There are amazing books, but there are also amazing movies. Ulysses would be very difficult to capture in a movie, while Memento would be difficult to make as a book. It is not impossible, and good writer and directors would probably be able to do it, but it would be hard. Some things work better as either books or movies. There are also a lot of really crappy books and movies, and so that is not a good way to compare either. Books are not boring, they are really good at allowing the reader to conjure up their own image. Movies on the other hand, are not only for lazy people. They are really useful when wanting to present a specific image connected to the story, like in Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain. Sure it takes more time to read a book (depending on the book) compared to a movie, but you get different things out of the two experiences.
    They convey different things, and are used for different purposes. One cannot say the other is better, because they are not comparable.

  • They are equal.

    Both are great as individual mediums. Of course, a book made into a movie will pale in comparison but you could say the same thing if a movie was made into a book. Movies can be intelligent and provoke thought just like a book can be a complete waste of time and money. So, in my opinion an original movie is just as good as an original book.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.