A movie is more aesthetically pleasing to a wider audience than a book. A movie provides entertainment for people who cringe at the sight of a book, or simply just can not read. For example, movies like “Planes” or “Finding Nemo” by Disney were designed to entertain children who can not read strongly yet. Even though movies provide entertainment for people who can not enjoy a book, a books is still better than a movie. A book can take a reader hours or days to complete, depending on the type of reader, and the type of book. A book can range from just a few pages to hundreds of pages and can literally be about anything one could imagine. A movie is typically under three hours long because the directors do not want the audience to get too bored. A book is better than a movie …show more content…
A book gives the reader a more personal view of the characters and the story. Freedom of imagination is important to have because it makes the story more personal and unique. In contrast, a movie takes away the freedom of imagination. The characters are given to the audience. They show you exactly what a character looks like, no imagination is used. For example, in the book, The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, Katniss is described as tribute who is generally smaller and weaker than all the other tributes. That is what makes her winning so remarkable and honorable. In my imagination, I picture this small, weak looking girl who does not look like a tribute that would last very long. In the movie; however, Katniss is actually quite muscular and physically fit. She is larger than almost all the other tributes, which makes it obvious that she is most likely to win. This shows the different ways people can use his or her imagination. I imagined a small, weak person while the director imagined someone who looks like he or she would win. Freedom of imagination makes a book better than a