>Watch the movie
>It’s pretty good
>Then read the book
>It’s better quite literally 9 times out of 10

We need to admit that ‘cinema’ is an inferior artform to books. The writing of a movie is weakened in its visual form as the director has to focus on other things, whilst in a book, the writing is the ONLY thing that needs to be focused on. Books are also better at stimulating your creativity as they force you to create the very scenes in your head, offering a form of mental/imaginative exercise for your brain, whilst when you watch a movie, that is taken away from you.

In other words, throw your tv set away, and in its place, you can install, a lovely book shelf on the wall.

>>212228401 (OP)
Blame for this lies with the people enamored with the technology of film, who have completely crowded out the storytellers.

theres a board for you and you should go there

Ya but you’re supposed to read the book first, it’s always better in that order because you will be imagining the stuff without any reference points, then when you watch the movie you compare it to your own imagination. If you watch the movie first it will influence your reading

>>212228401 (OP)
Any examples of the opposite?

>>212228539
Without any irony whatever: Lord of the Rings.

>>212228401 (OP)
Cinema can and often does do things books cannot. Alongside the fact that adaptations of books are a different breed of picture anltogether and citing them as the end all be all of the art form is disingenuous, there remains the massive advantages films have as an audio,visual medium. I love books aswell and of course Moby Dick is better than the Gregory Peck movie version, but what books can match Langs Metropolis in terms of visual splendor? Even the greatest imagination couldn’t use music to enhance a story like films do. In Demys “Bag of Angels” for instance, a musical theme is played several times, first in the opening scene and then later throughout to punctuate characters actions. It’s a beautiful theme and it greatly contributes to the movie in a way a medium without audio couldn’t. How about Risi’s Il Sorpasso? It uses popular music to showcase the nature of the two leads, something that could work when described on paper but is undeniably better when you yourself hear the music. Realist films can document a more genuine human experience than a book, no matter how well written. New Wave movements throughout cinemas history allow you to observe an unparalleled progression of not only storytelling methods but visual techniques as well, visual techniques that are as crucial to the film as prose is to a novel. At the end of the day they’re different mediums and comparing them is folly, and even if filmed adaptations of literary works often fall short of the mark, there’s more than enough great movies utilizing the strengths of the medium to their full potential to make up for it.

>>212228539
Mildred Pierce

>>212228539
Dracula desu

>>212228745
Completely disagree

>>212228401 (OP)
>It’s better quite literally 9 times out of 10
List ones were it's not. I will start
>Fight Club

>>212228499
>you’re supposed to read the book first
Then you will almost always be disappointed.

>>212229707
Better than spoiling a perfectly good novel …

>>212229707
No, then it's just fun and interesting even if the movie sucks.

>>212229730
>>212229707
I’ll add that reading the novel first actually makes you appreciate the movie more because you can do gay shit like “hey it’s that thing from that part!” Or “hey they did that really well” or “hey they really fucked that up”.

I’ve never had a movie help me appreciate a novel in the opposite direction, it actually takes away from the experience and feels like a massive waste of time because I already know “what happens”.

>>212229742
This. It’s simply interesting comparing what’s on the screen to what was in your head. Even a bad movie becomes interesting when you read the book first. It’s inconceivable to me to go in any other order. Anyone suggesting otherwise I’m convinced has simply never read a book.

>>212228401 (OP)
books cost comparatively little to make. films are more expensive to the extent that they are a business product first and foremost. it's inevitable that films will be shitted up by 'appealing' to demographic x (women, the chinese, inner city teenage browns, etc.) for maximum ROI.

>>212229873
>Anyone suggesting otherwise I’m convinced has simply never read a book.
I read plenty of books. Perhaps it's some autism, but I mostly get annoyed at how much they leave out. Latest example would be Dune.

>>212228539
the shining

>>212228455
>storytellers
Like who?

>>212228401 (OP)
If you put on subtitles it's like reading a book and a movie at the same time

Watch more /lit/ kino.