Reading a book is better than watching a film

I will spend this round refuting pro's claims. My opponent asks who would want to watch a 5-14 hour movie? Who would dedicate such long time watching one story play out? This is not a hard question for the 114 million subscribers of HBO [1]. Tv series have started to gain massive popularity since the 2000s. Why? Because you dedicate a long time following characters and getting to know them. And the best thing about it, an episode usually only takes an hour, making you able to cut a show into nice little pieces to watch. And yes, while a book is very mobile and easy to carry around, so is a smartphone with a Netflix app. I agree that condensing books into movies rarely works out, which is why it's a stupid idea. Not because movies are somehow inferior storytellers, but because books are much lenghtier than movies and many details would get deleted. Just like it's a bad idea to put a grown man in a baby's crib, or stuffing an elephant in a freezer. Then again, why would you? Pro states that the things shown in a film are just a group of people's opinions unlike a book which allows people to get their own opinions and judgements rather than them being made for them. Ironically, I see it as quite the opposite. When a book wants to inform the reader that a character is envious about something we see "the man was envious about...". When a movie wants to do the same we see the character looking, we might see him angry a bit, his face might turn red, these are things we OBSERVE and not READ as it is a fact. The first leaves the emotion of the character open and lets us figure things out. I understand there are many books that do this more subtly than how I described it, but we have to remember this debate is not about movies being better than books, it's about movies being equally good. I would also like to comment on pro's claim that words in the book give you everything you need without the unnecessary things to put you off the message of the story. The story and message of Moby Dick can be summarized in one or two pages tops. But this is not why you read a book. You read a book because you enjoy the author's techniques of easing us into this. Just like with movies, cinematography makes a movie enjoyable to watch. Isn't that what any writer strives for? Pro claims that philosophical films are inferior because uneducated people may not understand it. But I think we should not be making books or films for the lowest common denominator, we should make them for every audience, smart ones and less smart ones. The ones that enjoy mindless action and explosions can go to Michael Bay movies, the ones that enjoy a more sophisticated subject can go to other movies. Pro claims that if the same uneducated people would read books they would understand them. That seems to me like a contradiction, because pro has always preached that books play more with the imagination and interpretation than movies. Pro also claims that younger people will not be educated by sitting on the couch staring at something they don't understand. This applies to both books and movies. In his last point pro seems to acknowledge what I said but then completely ignore it. If a director has made an ambivalent movie, this means that that he does not judge about the story and lets the viewer decide. I have not seen a rebuttal to this claim. I rest my case and which my opponent good luck in the last round. [1] http://variety.com...