I watched The Green Mile and Aliens originally to see how the quality of DVD was holding up back in like 1997; Back when there were few around, and fewer that my dad or friend(s) actually owned. Sorta funny that 10 years later they're pushing another format...

Books include scenes, backstory and characterization which the movie leaves out. And at the speed I read, the book generally takes as long as the movie anyway. Plus it's cheaper, and I can read it again without having to buy the DVD.

Different art forms for totally different expressions with, most often, the common string of "story."

I like them both and for different reasons.

I must say that I'm far too critical with books, though. A book has to be really, really good for me to enjoy it. Whereas I'm very content with a B movie.

I'm often surprised what "good" means for me, though. I often fall in love with a weird, random book and put aside a book that I thought I loved, but really ended up not caring much for.

NO. Movies can do everything a book does and more. And yes, movies can be made in such a way that allows the audience to use their imagination too even though imagination is overrated. Unfortunately, these pro book people are judging movies based on the majority of movies out today and that is just wrong. Because those movies were not designed to compete with books. They were designed to provide entertainment for 2 or 3 hours or less.

Won't you admit that there are a few great books that simply don't work as movies and fail miserably when it gets tried?

No. Those who have tried, have simply failed or did not intend to create something that competes against the book.
I'm guessing, people just don't want to make movies that compete with books because
A) it will be too much work.
B) It will be too expensive.
C) They won't make enough money to justify, the whole thing.

If your goal is to simply make $$$, better to create some shitty 2 hour movie with lots of special effects and romance.

But if someone just wanted to prove people wrong and had the resources and brains to do so, that person could make a movie that makes every book today, not even worth reading. Because a movie can do exactly what a book does, but add sounds and images... Add music... And remember that saying, a picture is worth a thousand words...?

XD That's because you can't film 'Slaughterhouse V' or 'Naked Lunch'.

Jimi Hendrix once said the most frustrating thing about being a musician was that no matter how good he got with the guitar he could never totally recreate the sounds and emotions going around in his head and that applies to film. You might come close, you might inadvertently create something great (even better than the source material), but you can never capture to a tee the mental with the physical.

I added more to my previous post. And a movie can do a lot more than what a guitar does.

Nothing can do what a guitar does. :D

Now you are being silly. A movie can have a soundtrack and that soundtrack can have music from a guitar. Think about how many movies that would of sucked balls without their soundtracks. That's because music has so much power over people. Well, last time, I checked, there wasn't any music coming from any of my books...

The fact is books < radio < movies.

I'm going to go ahead and step out of this thread for the sake of our friendship. :D

Why? I'm not putting down all the good books you love. I'm just saying, movies are a better medium for telling stories.

And I'm saying as an artist it is a profound insult to say something like, 'Movies have a soundtrack, that can have guitar'. You are completely overlooking the heart and soul of creative process and the emotions that make up a chord progression or a good poem that come from the deepest and darkest parts of one's psyche. When an artist sits down and pens something, be it with words music paint etc they are reaching where the material world cannot, that's why so many of them/us are mentally shady at best and at worst go insane. It can't be quantified and what's even more frustrating, unless you have experienced it yourself it can't be explained.

I insulted artists? What?!? By saying "A movie can have a soundtrack and that soundtrack can have music from a guitar."? How? I'm not overlooking anything. The music from a guitar in a soundtrack is no different than any other music. I know how art is made. I don't see how that sentence could be insulting. Look at the soundtrack for the movie, Flash Gordon. It was made by Queen...

I'm not having this argument with you, and that's what it's become, an argument. I beg you to just let it drop. There are many much more fun things we could be debating right now.