Reading a book is better than watching a film

Pro forgot to give definitions so I'll assume them for him. Book = literature: writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays. Film = motion picture Better = superior in quality or excellence. In his first point pro claimed that books are longer and more detailed and movies are restricted to a time slot. He also claims that movies cannot succeed in developing characters as well as books. This is however a huge generalization. Movies have never been restricted to any time slot. A quick google teaches me there are numerous movies of which the length ranges from 5 to 14 hours [1]. Of course, those movies form a minority, but that does not mean they're to be discarded as movies. Movies take as much time as needed. The claim that books are able to have more detail in them is also false. Because facial expressions, surroundings and cinematography are something that books miss. Sure a book can explain the environment, explain the emotions of the character but that only goes so far. For many people it takes a great deal to so vividly imagine the character going through whatever the author throws at them. In movies this is more easibly detectable. Not to mention the cinematography that adds a great deal of fascination to a movie. I'm talking about aerial shots, backlighting, cross-cutting, jump cuts, deep focuses, dollies, eye-line matching, fill light and many more. I have yet to see a book that is able to perform that. Pro claimed that movie characters are less capable of developing. This is also false. I will quickly take There Will Be Blood [2] as an example. An excellent movie from 2007 about an oil entrepeneur and his rise and downfall. This is an example of a movie that greatly focuses on character and not so much on plot. There's not a single scene where Daniel Plainview is not present in. Due to the excellent acting of Daniel-Day Lewis we can read every thought and emotion of Plainview's face. We empathize with him; we laugh and cry with him. And this is but one example of many excellent movies. In his second point pro claimed that books are a good way for people to become more educational without having to do hard work and assumes books are not. This, as well, is a huge generalization. There have been many movies dealing with philosophical problems like Pi, a Clockwork Orange, the Truman Show, Groundhog Day and many more. And for the younglings among us, Disney has contributed a lot of movies educating little kids. Aladdin taught us that love is not restricted to social ranks. Toy Story taught us that jealousy and envy can cloud your judgement. Mulan taught us that any gender can do great things. And these are all kids movies. Besides, I have yet to meet a kid that would rather read a book than watch a movie. In his third point pro claimed that movies have a fixed mindset and prevent building on imagination. While this might be true on a visual level, such as that the images will always be the same for everyone, content-wise this is not necessarily the case. David Lynch [3] is a great director known for having very ambivalent movies. He will show you a 3-hour combination of sceneries and people and it's up to you to figure out what the heck is going on. There's not a right or a wrong answer, every interpretation is valid. So yes, these movies do contribute to your independant thinking. My conclusion is as follows: Books and movies are two completely different things. Books do some things better, movies do other things better. Hollywood isn't the only place where movies are made. Genious directors and writers from all over the world make magnificent movies that are full of philosophical subjects and can teach you as much as books can. You just have to know where to look. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.imdb.com... [3] . http://www.imdb.com... More sources available on request.