Roger Ebert ended the argument once and for all.

How many times do we have to repeat the phrase "comparison is the thief of joy" for people to get it through their thick skulls? Books, games, films, music; literally any form of art is the best form of art when it is well crafted with sincerity and respect.

He understood this, but couldn't understand how video games are even better than movies by the same principle.

I think the average good movie can be more immersive than the average good book. But a masterpiece book with hundreds of pages can achieve a much more emotional attachment. Also knowing that a single person made it simply as it is adds to it. Movies often try to trick the viewer.

The same is true for music or literature or almost all other art.

This is more true with a book Try one

I guess Ebert was a 3, at best, then.

@battlehateharm I mean, the exact same case could be made for good books. So it hasn’t really ended the argument has it

That can happen with any art. Close your eyes and listen to music, play an immersive video game for hours. It's the same exact thing, and i'm sure people do this with books too. Awful take

op is saying in probably different context

Koi na banger toh banger hove hai

My theory: Books demand more of a person. More imagination, more willingness to fill in the gaps for the other senses. Movies are "easier" because they do that for you, and so, they are more accessible.

Roger Ebert was frequently wrong, and cinema was his area of employment. Reading books causes the same sensation he speaks of here, so he's just saying, "I like movies more than books." Cool. ::shrug::

Books are very easy to make and have been around for much longer. When you start reading a lot, movies start to feel more formulaic in comparison. A good book feels like you step into someone else's mind and see the world through their eyes.

is that not true with reading?

Reminds me a bit of a quote of Fernando Pessoa on literature. I think it touches upon a similar idea of escapism. When I first read it, my immediate thought was if the evolution of cinema after his death would have changed his mind.

It's too hard to compare, for me. Both excel where the other fails. Film can definitely be so immersive, and heightened. But novels have more scope to be expansive and cover long periods of time. A book is a journey.

What he's describing happens with books too, though, just to a greater degree because books offer more internal depth. imo

I've felt exactly what he's saying far more often with reading books. It's probably to do with how much more time we spend with a character over the course of a book than a film. It's definitely more immersive if that's the right word.

Immersion is not the only metric for quality, nor does it directly correlate with impact. You don’t have to forget yourself within a piece of media for it to greatly impact you. This is all besides the fact that particularly focused, vivd readers can achieve immersion too.

I somewhat agree, as movies are a great vehicle to convey emotion, visually. A masterpiece can really bring all of the senses together. But books offer all of the above too, it’s just more of a challenge to obtain. The onus is on the individual to achieve this. Just think of how many amazing books have been adapted to the cinema screen. Therefore, I feel books still have a slight edge over film.

I feel like you become entranced with any form of art if it speaks to you that much. I wouldn’t say it’s exclusive to movies, I’d say for me it might be comics or manga or anime. I’ve had movies do the same but it’s simply preference in my mind

You can't put Brothers Karamazov to film. You can't make Citizen Kane a game. You can't turn Elden Ring into a novel.

I don't really see any convincing argument for one medium being "better" than another. Merely more effective at certain things.

I think when I'm reading that's such an active process I'm forced to give it my attention, where as a movie doesn't have that weight, the movie happens regardless of what I'm doing. I know what he means, but I've always found reading more engaging in the way he means.

Truth. People often say “But the book is always better than the movie” yeah that’s usually true, but I don’t think that’s because books are an inherently better art form. That’s an issue with the industry, bad movies made just for money. But movies, at their best, are peak art.

Not also experiencing exactly what he's describing while reading a book is a personal problem

I disagree. Movies are too short to really get immersed in. There isn't enough time for the characters and stories to really develop. Besides, movies are good at displaying environments and expressions, but books convey what goes on inside people's heads much better than movies.

He’s wrong. Books definitely impact you more but less people read so less people are impacted.

Saw this in the middle of listening to the blank check episode about Taxi Driver and this shot makes me feel everything Ebert is talking about here so deeply

You could make this argument for literally any narrative art form.

Books are unique in their imaginative quality But movies are more intuitive and immediate, they confront you in the same way life does - Through images and sound The image and sound of a wailing child is infinitely more disturbing than any description of it

I loved reading his reviews. Another art form! Simply the best on movies IMO.

He’s not correct. Movies are potentially more visceral and engrossing in the moment, but that is not empathy or richness of character. It’s simply an overwhelming of the senses. A more keen experience, yes, but not more valuable. Or interesting.

Why would somebody say one thing is better than the other, it's just completely different things

No he didn't. He just say, in my opinion, movies touch us more deeply than anything else including books. He didn't even give an argument.