Books vs Film vs Television

[jcikal]

Which of these 3 forms of passive entertainment do you prefer?

 

[Rhymes]

depends how I feel:

In fall I prefer video games.
In winter I prefer television.
In summer I prefer books, because reading gives me something fun to do while enjoying the sun.

A good movie now and then never hurts.

 

[Disgustipated]

internet

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

Are books really a 'passive' form of entertainment?

I selected books because I find them to be much more immersive than either television or movies. Of course, I still enjoy a good movie or TV show (rare as they are).

 

[Disgustipated]

I hardly read anymore. My mind wanders too much. I find myself thinking of people I know, or sex when I'm reading. It's hard to focus on the material.

I had to vote movies, as I don't read or watch tv anymore.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

I hardly read anymore. My mind wanders too much. I find myself thinking of people I know, or sex when I'm reading. It's hard to focus on the material.

Try romances?

 

[Godwynn]

I wouldn't consider books "passive" entertainment.

That being said, I prefer books due to their bang for the buck. It's a lot cheaper to get 1 hour of entertainment out of a book than going to the movies or television. Also, I learn a lot more.

 

[Traitorfish]

Books. Not sure why, they just seem like the "fullest" sort of entertainment, whatever that means...

 

[Smellincoffee]

Books aren't passive entertainment, unless you're just reading a political or religious polemic that insults the people you don't like and praises the ones you do.

As entertainment, I prefer books to both film and television. I do not like television, but collect the shows I enjoy on DVD.

 

[madviking]

I'm too ADD to read books...

So that leaves TV and movies, but movies are really just nerfed up TV shows so I chose movies.

Music should be added as a poll option, too.

 

[Ajidica]

It varies. If I am braindead I prefer films. If I want to be engaged I read a book. If I'm to lazy to find a movie, I watch TV.

 

[Quackers]

Used to love boooks. But fiction bores the hell out of me now.
Films FTW

 

[Turner]

Depends on my mood. I like them all. I have problems with each of them too.

Books - By far, IMO, has the most depth. If I had to pick just one, I'd probably pick this. But when I read, it's like reading a forum post, I don't really visualize what I'm reading. When I go back and think about it, I do.

Movies - Gives me the visuals I lack from books, but it's someone else's visuals. But not much depth. Although sometimes that's a good thing, as I didn't like reading Goblet of Fire, although I think it's an excellent movie.

Television - A nice mixture of both, with an annoying week long delay between episodes. I like to dvr them and then watch a bunch of them back to back. And usually when I find a show I like, it gets canceled after a season or two. If I wait for a couple of seasons and then start watching it, I get confused when they're shown out of context, or feel like I'm playing catch up. Like with Scrubs now. Or I'm sitting around waiting for the next season to start, like with Justified.

 

[Aramazd]

TV. Films are too long, I prefer the 30 minutes to an hour of television, so I'm not spending so much time sitting and watching.

As far as books, I'm not really interested in fiction, but good nonfiction is pretty close to TV.

 

[Murky]

It's really more a priority list then either/or.

Media choice

1st. Film
2nd. Internet *could take top spot soon because Film is so expensive to make/buy.
3rd. Books
4th. Magazines/Newspapers
5th. Television (if you have to...) I don't watch it, unless you count Hulu and/or DVD collections.

 

[Traitorfish]

2nd. Internet *could take top spot soon because Film is so expensive to make/buy.

Is the internet really a medium, in this sense? I see it more as a method of delivery, given that it hosts a variety of different media, and that many of those media are not exclusively internet-based.

 

[Murky]

Is the internet really a medium, in this sense? I see it more as a method of delivery, given that it hosts a variety of different media, and that many of those media are not exclusively internet-based.

The Browser/Content combination is what makes the media and it simply referred to as "internet" by most people. The Internet is a lot more complicated than any previous delivery method, but just for the sake of simplicity we can call it a media source. Broadcast Television is more of a delivery mechanism than media. Your TV screen and the transmitted content make up the "media."

 

[Traitorfish]

The Browser/Content combination is what makes the media and it simply referred to as "internet" by most people. The Internet is a lot more complicated than any previous delivery method, but just for the sake of simplicity we can call it a media source. Broadcast Television is more of a delivery mechanism than media. Your TV screen and the transmitted content make up the "media."

Well, details aside, I now realise that it was rather over-simplistic of me to read "form of entertainment" as "medium", which is, rather obviously, a bit silly. Shouldn't've said anything, really.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

y'all saying films lack depth are watching the wrong movies.

plus you can't compare them to books truly but instead you can compare them more to plays and such. i always hate when the fans of a book see a movie based on it and complain, as if they're supposed to be the same when it two mediums.

that said, i voted film. it's just so immersive, you get the visuals, audio, etc. it's watching people interact and being a fly on the wall.

 

[GinandTonic]

Books are not a passive medium.