[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 100 KB, 600x603, R-2190289-1573994626-2519.jpeg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19492788 No.19492788 [Reply] [Original]

Why are films more popular than books? Is it only because books require more effort to consume?

>> No.19492796

yes

>> No.19492803

>>19492796
Games require much more effort than books, why is that more popular?

>> No.19492806

>>19492803
More immediate gratification

>> No.19492813

>>19492803
Games require more "effort" in the sense that it takes more effort to eat from buffet than to make dinner at home

>> No.19492876

>>19492803
>Games require much more effort than books
Wrong.

>> No.19492891

>>19492788
My waifu said it perfectly:

"Books require a solid mind and attention, and the space to read"

"Movies you can be fucked up on drugs or alcohol, trying to screw your date, or even just scrolling on your phone and still understand enough of the movie to say you've watched it"

>> No.19492953

>>19492891
Did you just ask her that?

>> No.19493130

You can watch a movie or play a video game with someone else. Reading a book with someone else is difficult.
Social activities are more popular then non social activities.

>> No.19493144

>>19492803
People finish 98% of the movies they start, 30% of the books they start, and 5% of the games they start.

>> No.19493633
File: 182 KB, 1372x810, 1634019274335.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19493633

>>19492788
>Is it only because books require more effort to consume?
Yes. The same goes for classical vs. pop when it comes to music or football vs. soccer when it comes to sports. The level of enjoyment is greatly enhanced based on what you bring to the table by way of having to actively engage with the media.

>> No.19493673

>>19492788
Films are more visceral. Literature is pallid and intellectual and distant in comparison.

Also, it typically takes less time to watch a film than to read a book.

>> No.19493710

Films you basically have the aid of your senses to carry you through. With books, it's your mind alone. You need to deliberately push yourself with books, even with the easier ones, whereas with most movies you can just let your senses carry you and get some enjoyment.

>> No.19493818

>>19492803
They don’t at all though.

>> No.19493857

>>19492788
passive and mindless
vs
active and complex
>>19492803
definitely gratification. this is why as people age they tend to play fewer video games; they're less gratifying as an adult with responsibilities. beating the game is less important when you have to wake up and go to work for real life issues etc, as opposed to a kid whose life isn't so full of responsibilities and can afford to be satisfied by beating a vidya game.

>> No.19493900

Films are more efficient. Books are slower but deliver more. It's not popularity, really. More so that the use of the two formats are spaced out proportional to their size. Like how 1 dollar bills are more commonly used than 100 dollar bills.

>> No.19493920

>>19493900
Revision: Books are slower but they deliver more At A Time

Revision: I just saw that there's more existing 100 bills than 1 bills but my comparison still works because there's more books than movies and most people don't use 100 dollar bills at the store.