This. Is this real?

[Smaug the Dragon]

Do people of this stupidity level really exist? Anyway, it's hilarious.

[Marvin D.]

Social opportunities! Books can be very anti social! When watching a movie you can talk to your friends and look back at the movie and you still know what's happening. This is alot harder with books because you have to mark were your up to with your finger and you get really confused

Someone hasn't heard of bookmarks, I believe. Also, I never knew books had the ability to be social or antisocial

Movies are also more appealing for the ears. There is a lot of music and speaking in a movie. Many people enjoy the sounds of another person's voice.

Actually, I prefer the sound of my own voice Or none at all.

When you watch a movie, you're brain dead. It provides no real imagination, literally all you're doing is sitting -unmoving- on a chair or couch. This is of no benefit to the body. With books, creativity is evoked, so is the imagination.

Because when you read, you are running 10 miles an hour.

Movies are better than books, I believe because reading a book is too much work

You brain-dead, literally unmoving person you,

*sigh* I don't want to live on this planet anymore

[Smaug the Dragon]

I love all the people who claim that movies are better than books because

books have too many words.

Excellent point.

[Marvin D.]

Well, I say that MOVIES HAVE TOO MANY PICTURES. TAKE THAT

[TigerintheShadows]

Accurate.

I mean...I'm a book purist as much as the next person (the HP books are way better than the movies ), and I much prefer films that are original stories and not films that are essentially telling the same story a (talented) writer already could without pictures, director's creative vision or not. I mean, there's nothing inherently wrong, per se, with making movies out of books, but I mean, if you're the kind of person who likes reading, of course you're going to like the book better, and if you're the kind of person who likes to see a good movie, obviously you're going to prefer the movies. Why do we debate so much about one being better than the other when it's all down to personal preference?

[Anna><>]

Well, I say that MOVIES HAVE TOO MANY PICTURES. TAKE THAT

And since a picture is worth a thousand words then do movies have more words than pictures?
There's so much going on in a movie that unless you're ridiculously observant you can't catch every single detail at the pace the movie is going. But with a book you can read it at your own pace and catch all the details.

[Pirate Oriana]

Actually, I prefer the sound of my own voice Or none at all.

Well THAT'S a shocker.

I like movies. I like books. To be honest, I'm probably more of a bookworm than a movie geek. Probably part of this is because books last longer (sometimes ) than movies do, so I get more time to enjoy the story-line. It might also be because (in my experience) reading is considered a more worthy use of time than watching a movie, so I was perhaps allowed and encouraged to read more books.

My main beef with movie adaptations of books is the same as everyone else's. WHY YOU GOT TO CHANGE DIS BOOK I LURV, DIRECTORZ?!?! Personally I don't mind when they take certain licenses, (LOTR, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, and Pride and Prejudice were all pretty good adaptations, in my opinion, despite the fact that they were not true to the story in absolutely every detail.) the only time that I get really upset is when they start making major changes that affect the emotion of the story, or the actual premise of the story itself. (Exhibit A: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I mean SERIOUSLY. GREEN MIST? *grumble grumble* )