Does reading affect tv and movie viewing?

[mylungswereaching]

I've always loved to read and I love books that have very complicated plots and well conceived worlds and viewpoints. Movies and most tv series can't possibly go into the depth of character and have as complicated plots as a good book can. I wonder if this affects my tv viewing.

I find most tv so dumbed down that I can't stand it. One of the reasons that MST3k was a great show was because it's jokes were all over the place and it kept it interesting.

My question is, does being a regular reader make it difficult to watch standard tv or movies?

[mummifiedstalin]

I'd say it can. But each medium does have its own strengths and weaknesses. I notice that I have less tolerance for very visual writers. I often think that their stuff would just be better if I could SEE what they keep wanting me to see.

But good visual media can convey just as much in a shot that lasts less than a second as a novel can in a page. Mad Men occasionally does that with a glance or a single word combined with how the shot was set up, etc. And there are some movies that I think are way more complicated than some of the novels I've read that have overly complicated plots.

Just remember, a book or story may have detail, but that doesn't mean that the characters or story the writer is telling warrants all that detail.

This all only counts for GOOD books or GOOD tv/movies, of course. A good movie beats a bad book any day. And vice versa.

[Emperor Cupcake]

I have always preferred to read, though I don't mind seeing a movie every now and then. I don't watch much TV at all; you're right, a lot of it does kind of try my patience, as I think a lot of shows keep belaboring really obvious points, or saying the same thing over and over again. I watch "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," and I like docs on the Science Channel if they're about evolution or astrophysics, but other than that, meh. I've been watching "Mad Men" on DVD, and I like that a lot. But in general, if I'm given the option, I always choose a book. And when I watch movies I tend to pick indie or foreign-language ones. Because I'm elitist like that.
:-)

[inlovewithcrow]

I find TV insipid and shallow and worse, for the most part. I don't own a TV nor have I for most of my adult life. But you know, there are more households in the USA without refrigerators than without TVs. That really makes a person think.

I never like the movies made from books as much as the books, though Silence of the Lambs and Cold Mountain were credible adaptations. I miss being privy to the thoughts of the viewpoint character.

[callipygias]

Weird, but I don't think I've ever heard this question, exactly. The answer turns out to be no, which also surprises me. I don't think reading has the slightest effect on how I watch tv or movies -- Unless it's a based-on-the-book type situation it feels like they're completely unrelated. Feels the same to wonder how reading affects my bowling. If I bowled.

[siamesesin]

I thought you meant if having the tv on while reading affected me. It drives me nuts.

[Mod City]

For me, the answer is not at all, because I enjoy and appreciate the strong points of both mediums.

I think it's a waste of time to compare reading to watching television or movies, especially when you get into the whole "the book was better than the movie/adaptation." Ninety-nine percent of the time when someone says that, they're just trying to make sure you know they read the book.

[mylungswereaching]

It's not so much comparing them. Its partly that I find main stream movies and TV to be much more generic and predictible than books are. While individual authors tend to repeat themselves, most mainstream TV and movie authors seem to be pushed into a narrow mode of writing that tends to be very predictible and bland.

If you have 100 books by different authors in the same genera, you've got 100 different styles. A lot of them will be generic but 10 or 20 of them will be unique. If you've got 100 movies or tv shows in the same genera, mayby 1 or 2 will be unique.

For example in a mainstream tv show or movie, you need to have a mixed cast of male and female of different ethnic groups. You need to have the hero type, the smart aleck, the comic relief, the one who is likely to panic, the mystical or parent figure, etc. You just mix and match types. In comedies, all fathers are incompetent and all children are wise. Few show break the trends. On the rare occasion they do and are sucessful at it, every one copies it and that becomes the mainstream.I think I notice the predictability of many tv shows and movies more because of the more unpredictable nature of books.

With rare exceptions the book is almost always better than the movie because of time constrains. A 1 1/2 hour movie is a 140 page book. So if you make a 400 page book into a movie you have to leave a lot out. I like a lot of detail and development in a story and that is a lot easier in a book.

In movie adaptations, when the movie takes everything that special out of the book and adds a bunch of stuff in that's not there for no appearant reason, it can be very annoying. Some movie adaptations are so bad, its like making a movie about the Titanic and leaving out the part where the boat sinks. Some movie scripts are so different from the book that you wouldn't know it was based on the book if you took away the title screen and changed the name of the characters. If your going to write your own story anyway, why use the title of the book?

[Mod City]

You have some good points, but I would add a few others.

Nov 16, 2009 19:31:07 GMT -5 mylungswereaching said:

It's not so much comparing them. Its partly that I find main stream movies and TV to be much more generic and predictible than books are. While individual authors tend to repeat themselves, most mainstream TV and movie authors seem to be pushed into a narrow mode of writing that tends to be very predictible and bland.

If you have 100 books by different authors in the same genera, you've got 100 different styles. A lot of them will be generic but 10 or 20 of them will be unique. If you've got 100 movies or tv shows in the same genera, mayby 1 or 2 will be unique.

I agree, but are those 10 to 20 unique styles any good, or are they just unique? To me, unique is not an automatic indicator of "good." Of course, that applies to television as well. I'm not so concerned with my television or film being unique as I am with it being well-executed for what it is.

Also, the pool of books out there is far, far, far deeper than the number of television shows and films. There are going to be many, many more books with their own style than films and television shows.

For example in a mainstream tv show or movie, you need to have a mixed cast of male and female of different ethnic groups. You need to have the hero type, the smart aleck, the comic relief, the one who is likely to panic, the mystical or parent figure, etc. You just mix and match types. In comedies, all fathers are incompetent and all children are wise. Few show break the trends. On the rare occasion they do and are sucessful at it, every one copies it and that becomes the mainstream.

You don't need any of those things (and I'm not sure I agree with all those observations). Some, but certainly not all, break those conventions.

In addition, while a book rarely has more than one author putting the story to paper, television and movies have actors, directors, screenwriters, cinematographers. Maintaining purity of vision is difficult with so many cooks, but there is also a richness in the development of a project with that many artists involved.

I think I notice the predictability of many tv shows and movies more because of the more unpredictable nature of books. With rare exceptions the book is almost always better than the movie because of time constrains. A 1 1/2 hour movie is a 140 page book. So if you make a 400 page book into a movie you have to leave a lot out. I like a lot of detail and development in a story nd that is a lot easier in a book.

When the book is made into a movie, sure. But it works both ways. In my opinion, the novelization of the first Star Wars movie was overwrought and completely weighted down by itself. It failed to capture the nimble energy that was present on the big screen. A novel wasn't its intended medium. While the transition from screenplay to novel is much more rare, it still carries the same stigma.

It also depends on what you read or watch, of course. I'm guessing I can find plenty of repetitive predictability in books out there. I'll start with the racks at the checkout counter at the supermarket and go from there. There's tripe to be found in all formats.

[mummifiedstalin]

Nov 16, 2009 20:34:16 GMT -5 Mod City said:

It also depends on what you read or watch, of course. I'm guessing I can find plenty of repetitive predictability in books out there. I'll start with the racks at the checkout counter at the supermarket and go from there. There's tripe to be found in all formats.

Indeed. I imagine that most people who would say "I prefer books to TV" are comparing their favorite books to TV shows that they rarely watch, or, if they do, that they don't think much of. But there are plenty plenty plenty of awful books written and bought by the millions.

Never equate "reading" itself with higher intelligence. It depends on what you read, just like it depends on what you watch.

[Gripweed]

Nov 16, 2009 19:31:07 GMT -5 mylungswereaching said:

In movie adaptations, when the movie takes everything that special out of the book and adds a bunch of stuff in that's not there for no appearant reason, it can be very annoying.

Yes. Example: The Lemony Snicket movie that came out a few years ago. You had the train scene (that wasn't in The Bad Beginning) and they moved the marriage bit to the end of the film, and gave the film itself something resembling a happy ending. If it were me I'd end the film with the Baudelaires leaving Lake Lachrymose and boarding the train to Paltryville, or have the camera zoom in on a train ticket or something.

[mylungswereaching]

<sup>quote author=modcitygun board=books thread=17989 post=818190 time=1258421656]You have some good points, but I would add a few others.

I agree, but are those 10 to 20 unique styles any good, or are they just unique? To me, unique is not an automatic indicator of "good." Of course, that applies to television as well. I'm not so concerned with my television or film being unique as I am with it being well-executed for what it is.</sup>


I agree there, but all things being equal, I prefer unique. If you have two average books/movies/TV shows in writing and execution but one is very similar to 100 other books/movies/TV shows, I'd prefer to watch the unique one. But of course, I'd rather watch an excellently made but familiar show to a poorly made but unique show. But even excellently made ones gets boring quick if it is too predictable or made unpredictable by not making any sense within the storyline.

^{Also, the pool of books out there is far, far, far deeper than the number of television shows and films. There are going to be many, many more books with their own style than films and television shows.}

Agreed because of the risks involved. There is a lot more money at stake with movie or TV series than a book which makes it more likely for them to take the safe path.

^{You don't need any of those things (and I'm not sure I agree with all those observations). Some, but certainly not all, break those conventions.}

Agreed. And the ones who break the conventions are frequently the most successful or the biggest failures.

^{In addition, while a book rarely has more than one author putting the story to paper, television and movies have actors, directors, screenwriters, cinematographers. Maintaining purity of vision is difficult with so many cooks, but there is also a richness in the development of a project with that many artists involved.}

Too many cooks spoil the sauce. My favorite shows/movies, MST3k, Monty Python, SNL, etc. tend to have a small group of writer/performers with minimal interference from the suits. Star Wars and Star Trek had one man with a vision at first. The formula that works best for me is get a small group of very talented writers/performers, give them a budget and a small list of rules not to break and keep out of the way. Most TV shows have the writers, the director of the week, the producers, the editors, the bean counters, the suits, the lawyers, the marketing people, etc. all trying to get control of the production. The tends to homogenize it. Creativity works best with one person or a small focused group in control. When Star Trek first came out the suits wanted to get rid of Spock and when the Wizard of Oz came out they wanted to dump the song Somewhere Over the Rainbow.


^{When the book is made into a movie, sure. But it works both ways. In my opinion, the novelization of the first Star Wars movie was overwrought and completely weighted down by itself. It failed to capture the nimble energy that was present on the big screen. A novel wasn't its intended medium. While the transition from screenplay to novel is much more rare, it still carries the same stigma.}

Agreed, different media, different needs.

^{It also depends on what you read or watch, of course. I'm guessing I can find plenty of repetitive predictability in books out there. I'll start with the racks at the checkout counter at the supermarket and go from there. There's tripe to be found in all formats.}[/quote][/sup][/sup]

Agreed, as Robert Heinlein said "90% of everything is crap." My problem is that I can still find a fair amounts of good books and the occasional excellent book but there's only one scripted show on network TV that I find rising to the level of mediocre with a lot of terrible ones and the one OK one was just canceled. (Keeping in mind that in some ways quality is a subjective thing.)

[inlovewithcrow]

Agreed, as Robert Heinlein said "90% of everything is crap."

Ted Sturgeon: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law

I am officially an s-f geek, aren't I?

[mylungswereaching]

Nov 17, 2009 7:30:54 GMT -5 Gripweed said:

Nov 16, 2009 19:31:07 GMT -5 mylungswereaching said:

In movie adaptations, when the movie takes everything that special out of the book and adds a bunch of stuff in that's not there for no appear ant reason, it can be very annoying.

Yes. Example: The Lemony Snicket movie that came out a few years ago. You had the train scene (that wasn't in The Bad Beginning) and they moved the marriage bit to the end of the film, and gave the film itself something resembling a happy ending. If it were me I'd end the film with the Baudelaires leaving Lake Lachrymose and boarding the train to Paltryville, or have the camera zoom in on a train ticket or something.

Good example. Some books have a down or bittersweet ending because they're trying to make a point. When the movie comes out they try to make it happy ending.

I read the Nanny Diaries a few years ago. Decent, amusing, not a great book but fun to read. It was very funny at times but ultimately a sad book. By the end of the book, I felt that the kid in the book was basically doomed because the only person in the world who cared for the child was the Nanny, and they always ended up getting fired. I felt that, that was one of the important points that the book was tying to make. The movie changed the ending of the book where the parents finally realized what they were doing to the child. One of the books main points was that the parents were totally incapable of understanding anyone else's feelings and that is part of why they were successful.
Changing the ending changed the entire point of the book.

[mylungswereaching]

Nov 17, 2009 16:03:54 GMT -5 inlovewithcrow said:

Agreed, as Robert Heinlein said "90% of everything is crap."

Ted Sturgeon: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Law

I am officially an s-f geek, aren't I?

duh, Your right, Heinleins is TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.