Books are better than Movies

I will again defend my points and then attack my opponent’s. 1. Books are PortableI will affirm this point with a series of sub-points. A) My opponent's would be a valid point if not for the fact that the DVD player needs the charger much more than the the book needs the light; but they have very different functions. A comparable object to the book light is a device used to block the sun, and, therefore, reduce glare. Both book lights and glare-reducers are expensive, unwieldy, and unnecessary. These cancel each other out. However, a charger is necessary for the DVD player to run. Books don’t need chargers. You can take a book anywhere while a DVD player is limited to it’s battery life, bright light, and the classroom. My opponent has not addressed these two situations that I have described. This sub-point stands. B) My opponent attacked two of the points where I have said that the book is more mobile than the movie: with headphones and on airplanes. I will start with airplanes first. My opponent points out that when on an airplane, one has to put up one’s book as well as one’s movie; however, she did not mention the hassle of putting away one’s movie while the plane takes off. She completely ignored that. And, you still have to put up you electronic device, ma’am, earlier than your book. This sub-point stands. I will admit to bringing up headphones. To save space, I will agree that points about headphones are irrelevant. C) As for the little annoyances: -I will admit that getting a reading person’s attention is just as hard as getting a headphoned person’s attention, but just that. They cancel each other out. This argument is void. -I concede paper cuts; but really, paper cuts? -For all of you who did not know, Myopia is nearsightedness. I, myself, am nearsighted and have to wear contacts to correct that. However, the article [1] says that even though there is a correlation, [and I quote] “Proving causation is much more difficult. To better understand and study the effect of visual environment on the developing eye, research in animal models is underway. Overall it seems environmental factors do play a role - how much? - we do not know as of yet.” So, with correlation not equalling causation, or at least considerable causation, this argument is void. To finish this, I will say that, with most of my positions validated, and the only concession being paper cuts (come on!) this entire argument stands. 2. Books are made into movies, not the other way around My opponent misunderstands this point. According to Wikipedia [2] there is roughly equal amounts of original screenplays and adaptations of books. Read that again. This means that the movie industry needs the book industry (and books like The Lightning Thief, I am Legend, and A Christmas Carol) to produce a little less than half of it’s profits. Originality makes something of a higher grade; books are much more original (and another example will not prove me wrong, because there is so little film-to-book adaptation) medium than the motion picture is. This argument stands and can only fall when my opponent can show me that the book industry also leans on the movie industry as heavily or more heavily than the movie industry. 3. Books engage one’s imagination Where the Wild Things Are does NOT matter. The average age of the person who is reading Where the Wild Things Are is of the age where that person is starting to read. Do you think they can understand backstory? Also, according to the director [3] the adaptation was NOT supposed to be a, quote, “children’s movie.” So he was aiming at a different audience than the audience that first read the book. (I must point out that I am talking about age groups, not the actual people.) Plus, the original concept has been expanded so much, that the movie is more or less “a movie about childhood” (also a directorial quote, same source) that is original in plot with only passing in similarity to the short picture book. Where the Wild Things Are =/= Where the Wild Things Are. Also, I, honestly, find the example of the Phantom of the Opera quite silly. All this proves is that, without the book, there would be no movie or musical. If one person liked that book so much that he turned it into a movie then obviously the book is an inspiring medium. The movie, I have to say, is much less inspiring. Also, it’s not December most of year round if it is December today; likewise, one counterexample does not disprove the whole argument. And what does this have to do with the point it is listed under? To conclude this point, I have to lay out two examples where the book was more inspiring than the movie: Harry Potter and The Golden Compass. I will do the Boy Who Lived first. If your argument stands about the movie being better than the book, then it would stand that the Harry Potter movies would continually get more money. This is not the case. Here is a chart I drew up: Movie Gross Movie 1: $317,575,550 2 $261,988,482 3 $249,541,069 4 $290,013,036 5 $292,004,738 As you can see, the movies were a mixed bag [4]. This makes one question about the superiority of the movies. The answer to your question is three words long: The Golden Compass. According to Wikipedia [4], not only was the critical reception largely not positive, the film was a flop and it was expensive enough for Time Warner to merge Warner Brothers and New Line Cinema, which created the film adaptation of the book. Sequels have been canceled. My argument stands. 4. Books are longer While it is possible to watch a movie in chunks, it is traditionally, and more likely, to be that movies are going to be watched more or less all at once. One does not start watching a movie in the morning and finish watching it in the evening. It is not the medium for that type of enjoyment; the book is. Also, I have proven that a book can exceed the enjoyability of a movie fivefold, but my opponent has not addressed this. My argument stands. I will now attack my opponent’s case. 1. Not Everybody Can Enjoy Information In Novels My point cannot obviously be wrong seeing as I made a perfect point about most of the world is literate. Here are some areas with over 80% literacy: The United States, China, South America, and the former USSR. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa has over 50% including Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa having such marks. Also, the language that the movie could and will greatly hinder the understanding. Also, there is a reason why the national language of the US is English: most people in the US speak it. If a person is low English proficient, then that person will also not understand movies in English. I can also apply this point to Pride & Prejudice: if the characters speak above the level of an eighth grade level book, then those people would not understand Pride & Prejudice the movie as well. This point is rebutted. 1. Movies Are Present In Society & Accessiblea) I agree that we have to prove our own points. If I have strayed away from that, then I apologize. Anyway, because the source was an opinion piece, and the author did not list her sources, then this sub-point can be nullified. b) Though I may underestimate the graveness of the statistic, it still stands that a majority of people have books in their lives after college. c) Definition disproves this; the broadcasting of a still or moving image via radiowaves to recievers that project a view of the image on a picture tube [6] is clearly not a movie. A movie can be on TV, but TV cannot be a movie. This point is rebutted. Vote PRO. Sources are in the comments