Do you think that watching a movie is better than reading a book?!
Question: in today's soceity more and more people are watching movies than reading. so, would it be possible that instead of enforcing people to read in schools, as an educational curriculum, that we are taught to interpret film instead?
Answers: in today's soceity more and more people are watching movies than reading. so, would it be possible that instead of enforcing people to read in schools, as an educational curriculum, that we are taught to interpret film instead?
Someone has said that if Walt Disney did a wrong thing it was that he showed children what a giant looked like. Before that, every child had his own idea of a giant. He read the book and his mind invented his own giant.
If you just see a movie, that whole mental process is bypassed, the experience missed, and that mental skill unused.
Read a good book, find your own giant.
I think we should. It's so hard for me to sit down with enough light and just wait, reading.............boring...
ya i really dont think its as a big deal as some people think it is.. if you dont want to read you shouldnt have to.. i mean as long as you can like i can really good i just hate it.
reading a book is way better because it goes into more detail than a movie would
I think both have their merits. I'm an avid reader AND an avid-movie watcher. Why not incorporate both? Film is an art form too. Not just writing.
Books are better because you decide how the characters look & the environment then are in. Your imagination is sparked. When watching movies, you are watching someone else's interpretation of the book. Plus movies can't go into the detail that a book can.
No because the books are much more detailed than the movies.
Read Lord of the Rings then watch the movies.... The movies leave out so much stuff.... The movies would be about 5 hours long each if they actually did more of it following the book.... the books are way better.
Watching a movie is not intellect and you don't learn new vocabulary words. Reading a book is much better.
Most people would probably like it better . Personally, I like reading!
Judging by your ability to spell you should be reading more books my friend. Also, what is your source for the (probably made-up) statistic you used. Are more and more people actually resorting to watching movies, or is this something that is just prompted and propagated by the media... use your brain.
i think it depends on the content of the book that you were reading...
some books are boring..
but some are really good to read
I think it really depends on the book. If it's a well-written book, then it should definately be read. If it's a boring or dull book, I think a movie kinda helps move it along alot faster.
However, I don't think movies shoud replace books. Reading challenges the readers creativity and literacy.
Watching a movie is just entertainment.
The fact that you can seriously ask this question shows that you need to read more. As an example you can't make a movie for everyone who needs to take a prescription. Also since movies are always at least a year behind the times it would be a huge step backward for your brain.
thats a really good idea, movies are my favorite thing though i love to read. movies shouldn't be INSTEAD of books they should be in addition to books. too bad the new rule at our school district is that no movies or clips of movies can be shown. >:[
No, don't agree .
Basically, because of what people who don't agree with you just said ..
I <3 books . :]
No, because when you read, you could picture it in your mind better. I wouldn't want my children go to a school that didn't teach reading. I'm a reader and that is what I want my children to be.
I like watching a movie rather than reading. But truthfully it would be more educational if I read a book, then watched a movie. For example: watch the Movie Eragon, then after read the book, totally different stimulation. The movie sucked and the book was great.
i think its possible, i doubt it will happen for a few years. because that could easily be abused
Each gendre has its own strengths and weaknesses. MOST non fiction movies (movies adapted from a non fiction work are well tooled for the screen meaning that much can be lost in the translation for the sake of entertainment value and cinematic license.
A book on the other hand (non fiction) and especially a memouir or a biography, is written to tell a true story (as true as ANY human telling can come to the truth) and as such will give you a good base in the reality of the story while a movie will not work as well, it is it JUST a recititation of someones earthly travails. And REGARDLESS of those travailes, no one would want to sit through 2 hours of what the REAL person would not want to go through again for any amount of money.
Also, basing ones understanding of a real historic event on that of a film dramatiization is to become one with potential to rewrite history and to distort it.
The BEST reporter of any historical event is the one who is a dispasionate "fly on the wall" at the moment of the event and is ALSO privy to much of the social event going on AROUND the participants. This is ALMOST never the case. And when it is, the historical recitation of the event is almost ALWAYS anti-climatic. Take the assassination of Lincoln. It is a straight forward story and many were there to record the events in real time, but the BIG news was NOT the assassination, but rather the future of the Union once the Great Emancipator was gone from the scene.
Doing a story (movie) of JUST the historical fact of the murder, without any backdrop of the political ramifications, is truly a dull topic. Lincolns death by the hands of Booth WHILE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, and by a garrett or choking devise, would have been the grist for Southern conspiracies to this very day. As it was, the 6 "stodges" that WERE hanged were draped in the most conspiratorical of tones anyway.
Unfortunately, the conspiracy connection as presented, does not pass the test of time or the facts as known at the time. BUT! As the opponents of the death penalty today like to say, "It is a punishment whose effects cannot be later reconciled" I don't believe that those responsible for the trial and execution of the 6 involved really wanted to know the intimacies of the facts surrounding these doomed people, only that SOMETHING WAS done.
I dont want to disappoint you in your question, but movie cinema has been more prominent since the mid 1940's as form of entertainment than reading.As early as of the late 60's, there were all kinds of educational tv for children such as "sesame street" and "conjunction junction". In the mid 80's, middle and high school were provided cable tv channels as initiative during the Reagan era to provide educational learning in the form of entertainment. Many HS already use movies to interpet Shakespearean works as opposed to reading the work for convenience. Personally, there's no reason to provide a course of film pnterpetation unless you plan on studying direction or filmography.
Let me warn you up front. Judging strickly by clues I'm taking by the way you wrote your question, I don't think you're gonna' like this answer. But hey, you asked: No. 1) I know that some people will never enjoy reading and thats fine. Doesn't make them silly or stupid or anything. But so many who get so much from reading and are able to give so much because they have been inspired through reading, would never know its value if it had not been "forced" on them as part of their early education. If they don't at least try to get kids to read in school, many of them would never bother simply because its so much easier - in a number of ways - to watch a movie. You mention "more and more" people watching movies instead of reading. Thats why. Its easier. And we're getting lazier and lazier, too. 2) Reading gets the reader INVOLVED in the subject by first making him use his imagination and then keeping him "on" a subject for more than a trifling 2 hours. With a book, you keep putting it down and picking it up again. Theres some time for your brain to digest what you've read and to churn up some original ideas. There are rare exceptions where a movie might really hit a nerve and get you thinking and doing, but generally when its over, its over. 2 hours of your life gone and what will it mean to you in 2 days? No, watching a movie will VERY rarely stimulate your mind like reading a book can. And its probably even more rare that a movie will make you examine your life and your world. 3) I read a lot of historical fiction that is purely entertainment, but it usually leads me to want to know more about the non-fiction sources that the author is drawing on. Occassionally a movie will do that, too, but in doing it it leads me right back to books. 4) Generally speaking, I think you'll find that people who don't read also don't write. The ideas that have shaped our world have not been -and never will be- communicated in 2 hour cinemas. The world needs readers because the world needs writers. 5) Finally, I don't mean that movies don't have their place, but with rare exceptions, I think that place is entertainment and not education.