Why does almost everyone like the same films, but not the same books?

[Nodrog]

In any "What is your favourite film?" thread, 90% of people posting will generally come up with the same cliched list of popular films (Godfather Trilogy/Shawshank Redemption/Clockwork Orange/Pulp Fiction etc), but in a "Favourite books?" thread people will generally post very different lists and actually express opinions that differ from one another. I can't think of why this is the case, especially since most people probably watch more films than they read books and hence have a wider variety of films to choose from; anyone got any thoughts?

[LHC]

There are only about 10 really good films. This is down to quality of actor/director etc, whereas a book doesn't have to have acting, so it doesn't suffer from the 'Keanu Reeves factor' or whatever.

[Evergreen]

Cause the amount of movies out there are v few.

The amount of books are vastly numerous.

Also most people will usually not read the book of the movie except in exceptional circumstances like LOTR.

A lot of people may or may no watch the movie of the book and may not like the movie over the book.

Hence the differences.

But you are comparing too vastly different media's, one has been around since cunieform, the other since 1920?

[Cmdr_Cyrax]

Because directors feel they have to dumb down the good books.
'Timeline' option.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Cause the amount of movies out there are v few.

The amount of books are vastly numerous.

Also most people will usually not read the book of the movie except in exceptional circumstances like LOTR.

A lot of people may or may no watch the movie of the book and may not like the movie over the book.

Hence the differences.

But you are comparing too vastly different media's, one has been around since cunieform, the other since 1920?

As I said, although there are many more books out there than films, I assume that most people have watched more films than they have read books.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

In any "What is your favourite film?" thread, 90% of people posting will generally come up with the same cliched list of popular films (Godfather Trilogy/Shawshank Redemption/Clockwork Orange/Pulp Fiction etc), but in a "Favourite books?" thread people will generally post very different lists and actually express opinions that differ from one another. I can't think of why this is the case, especially since most people probably watch more films than they read books and hence have a wider variety of films to choose from; anyone got any thoughts?

Oh, do people disagree with your views on Atlas Shrugged?

[Dante Hicks]

Films have a great element of "objectivity" about them. Although it's a still a matter of taste, most people can agree if a film has good production values, etc. Although there can still be cinematography styles which piss people off (kind of like writing styles) there are good special effects and there is cack.

There doesn't seem to be the same sort of thing in books.

Plus, as you've said there are vastly less films (especially if you only take "good" films) and people watch more films anyway. So maybe someone can realistically watch 5% of all "good" feature films but even the most prolific reader couldn't read 0.001% of all novels.

There is some agreement anyway (in similar circles at least) on novels. If I ask for people's fave books there's a good chance they will mention LOTR or Hitch Hikers or Pratchett, but maybe I know too many geeks.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

As I said, although there are many more books out there than films, I assume that most people have watched more films than they have read books.

Which is my point, there are only so many movies, everyone has watched tonnes of movies, hence it'll be easy to correalate popular movies to a mass of people.

However books are numerous hence it is quite possible for people to go through life without reading the same books etc hence why they can't relate on that front.

Lastly the book to movie, movie to book thing where people will prefer one which means they instantly can't rate the other.

[Nodrog]

But people generally do read the same books and watch the same movies. Its not like the average person is going to read the satyricon or something.

Also, I often see people saying they dislike a socially popular book, but I almost never see anyone say they dislike a socially popular film.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

But people generally do read the same books and watch the same movies. Its not like the average person is going to read the satyricon or something.

I don't know if people do read the same books. If I meet a new person and ask what movies they like then 90% of the time I will have seen it (unless they're some fag who likes pretentious shit). With books I've almost never read it (although I'm not a prolific fiction reader) and often never heard of it.

Maybe movies get more publicity per title.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Also, I often see people saying they dislike a socially popular book, but I almost never see anyone say they dislike a socially popular film.

As I said, in a crap movie there might still be something to redeem it. I thought Underworld was pretty poor overall but I appreciated seeing Kate Beckinsale looking vaguely gothy and wearing PVC trousers. Some of the action scenes were cool too.

I'm hardly going to say "Hmmm, the Grapes of Wrath was shit, but pretty cool sentence construction there Mr Steinbeck!" (just an example, I do actually like the GoW).

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't know if people do read the same books. If I meet a new person and ask what movies they like then 90% of the time I will have seen it (unless they're some fag who likes pretentious shit). With books I've almost never read it (although I'm not a prolific fiction reader) and often never heard of it.

Maybe movies get more publicity per title.

OK in that case I will revise my original question to be "Why do most people read different types of books, yet all watch the same standard McMovies dross, also why do people generally have different opinions on the quality of a popular book but almost all agree on the quality of a popular movie".

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm hardly going to say "Hmmm, the Grapes of Wrath was shit, but pretty cool sentence construction there Mr Steinbeck!" (just an example, I do actually like the GoW).

What? Of course you can say things like that. "Your writing style is immensely pleasing to read Mr Joyce, but perhaps you might want to stick to one language and not change it multiple times per sentence you pretentious ****wit", "Way to faggot up a potentially interesting story line there with pages upon pages of pointless tedium Mr Doestoyvski ", "A novel containing a 120 page speech by one of the main characters is not a novel you dozy cow however I thought the rest of your book was good"

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What? Of course you can say things like that..

OK perhaps my original claim was misstated but due to the medium it's a LOT harder (for me at least, your results may vary) to overlook the faults in a bad book than a bad movie. I'll merely stop reading a book if it's not very good, although a film has to be downright diabolical for the same to happen.

[Entium]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

OK in that case I will revise my original question to be "Why do most people read different types of books, yet all watch the same standard McMovies dross, also why do people generally have different opinions on the quality of a popular book but almost all agree on the quality of a popular movie".

Because these popular movies have a much higher media presence than popular books. Also, i think there are a lot more very good books over different topics than movies.

[Dante Hicks]

p.s. Clockwork Orange sucks majorly.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

OK in that case I will revise my original question to be "Why do most people read different types of books, yet all watch the same standard McMovies dross, also why do people generally have different opinions on the quality of a popular book but almost all agree on the quality of a popular movie".

Because their are v v few movies in circulation compared to books.

How many times can we put this across?

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

The correct answer is: Because people are stupid

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Because their are v v few movies in circulation compared to books.

How many times can we put this across?

But I think most people generally dont venture outside the standard hollywood muck (for movies) and popfiction (for books). And it still doesnt explain why people reach consensus far more easily over the quality of a movie than they do over the quality of a book.

[Evergreen]

Cause only one person writes a book and a lot of books get published without much in the way of quality assurance and usually the book has v to little money invested in it.

Most movies people agree on have had millions of currency poured into them on top of test screenings on top of a lot of movies don't get released and are a collective effort of more than one person with at least some qualifications in the area.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

And it still doesnt explain why people reach consensus far more easily over the quality of a movie than they do over the quality of a book.

Again, I still think there is greater scope for objectivity with movies. Besides, a likable actor/actress draws sympathy for a story more than words on a page.

I found American History X to be a fairly dumb storyline for instance, but Edward Norton made me "believe" as it were, and give a shit about his crap character.

[Entium]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I found American History X to be a fairly dumb storyline for instance, but Edward Norton made me "believe" as it were, and give a shit about his crap character.

Yes, but exactly this should lead to a wider range of "good" movies and to less consens about the best movies. Not all people like the same actors, thus there should be a lot more disaccord about the qualitiy of a movie.

[NEWSBOT3]

interpretation.

books are more open to it.

[Nicole]

It's because books are more personal than movies. Watching a movie takes on average 90 minutes of your time. It's all visual, typically easy to follow, and shared with an entire theatre audience.

A book (we'll say a novel for the sake of argument) however usually takes much longer to read, it may take you the course of a week to finish it depending on your reading speed. It's also done privately in your own space and on your own schedule. So because of the time and work you spend on absorbing the book you have more of an attachment to it than a movie. Also the portability of a book allows you to put it more in the context of your own life. For example, I remember the first full-length novel I ever read (Charlotte's Web) and that I got it off my Great Grandmother's shelf in her nursing home room when I was 7 years old. The book itself, now old and tattered, has a special meaning for me because of it's context in my life.

A movie doesn't do that. You never invest as much of yourself into a movie as you do a book., thus your opinions of it are stronger. Also you're more likely to follow a genre since you don't want to spend a week reading a book you know you won't like. Since movies are so short you're willing to sit and watch something that maybe isn't in your usual taste. I think the genre thing is a really big part of it. Some people will only post about sci-fi, while others only like mysteries. The genre thing really isn't as prevalent in movies.

[JonnyBGood]

Only Hollywood (and a few British movies I guess) really make movies. Foreign movies and shit like that is just annoying because it's either subtitled or dubbed which a lot of people dislike. Books, quite obviously, can be translated into a different language fairly easily. Selection of world population down to 500 million from 6 billion (plus all the dead people).

Only certain types of movies will be made generally. To make a successful film usually requires more money. I can write science fiction and portray massive intergalactic battle fleets in a book at far less cost than if I attempted to do it through the media of film. So you're down to cheap films or classically Hollywood (one particular section of society will generally tend towards one genre) films. Cheap films have less source material to work with as do classically Hollywood movies.

Finally the fact that there are far more books than there are movies available. Go to your cinema or moviestore and there won't be anywhere near as large a selection as in your local bookshop or library. Low amounts of source material for a reduced population over a shortened length of time with less outlets means that people will read a greater variety of books than they will see films. As such preferences in literature will have a wider range than preferences in film.

[Supernova9]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

But I think most people generally dont venture outside the standard hollywood muck (for movies) and popfiction (for books). And it still doesnt explain why people reach consensus far more easily over the quality of a movie than they do over the quality of a book.

Because books allow you to construct your own picture in your head of what's going on, what's happening. The book is finely tailored by your imagination, e.g. ask everyone who read Lord of the Rings the book what they thought Gollum would look like, and I doubt many people would have drawn exactly what the film's artwork people created. That was their interpretation of the book, other people's differ, but to all the people, their interpretation of the book/storyline/characters is great.

With films however, you only see the director's interpretation, how things should look, who plays which character. It automatically limits the amount of imagination you can lend to shape a book as you see it. The greatest films of all time would be the ones that appeal to everyone, and seeing as people can only view the director's interpretation of that screenplay, it narrows down what people can construct in their own heads, making it less likely they'll like it in the same way they would a book.

That's kinda rambly, but I hope you see my point.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Entium

Yes, but exactly this should lead to a wider range of "good" movies and to less consens about the best movies. Not all people like the same actors, thus there should be a lot more disaccord about the qualitiy of a movie.

I dunno. I think a top 20 actors list would be pretty consistent. Again, perhaps there's some objectivity to it. Most people seem to agree that Al Pacino / Robert DeNiro are fairly competent actors, so even if they appear in a storyline you wouldn't normally enjoy, it's often still worth it.

[madi]

stopped reading about half way down so if i am repeating someone else
sorry

i think that apart from the fact that there are fewer good movies than good books
and fewer still if split by genre

a book is a far more personal experience
you use your imagination and interpretation to a far larger degree

[Radical Edward]

I think the general selection of films we can get hold of is prety small really, and the only ones we see tend to be the bigger films. Things tend to thin out a bit, and only more cultured people mention decent movies like delicatessen and so on.

[Scoot951]

It takes 2 hours to watch a movie but weeks to read a book. Even a person that likes reading probably sees more movies than they read books, most people probably hardly read any. And with so many books out there it's much less likely you'll meet someone who's read all the same books you have - even if they've read your favorite, they've probably read something else they like better.