Quote:
Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
A Film requires Recording equipment and projection technology. A book can be made from any form of paper, parchment, scroll, vellum etc & writing materials and some string or something to bind it.
Once you have made a film you must have projection facilities to even see it, These are usually articles of medium technology which require a fully industrialised nation to manufacture. Whereas a book once printed requires nothing, you may carry it around with you, skip to pages etc.
Also most importantly a film imposes a straight jacket on your imagination, There is no room for interpretation you can only see what they have filmed. Therefore films do not cross the boundaries of culture very well at all, and often fail to capture the imagination because they crush it.
Whereas books Feed the imagination and help to you think and the ideas contained within know no boundaries of culture or race.
|
Exactly. You prove my point. The book need facilities to enable it's existence, and is an entity itself. A way of projecting the medium of the written word. It needs tree cutter, papermills, machinery for binding, typeface for printing the words, Ink.
These things require a society to create it. A civilisation. Heck it only took humans 4000 plus years after writing, to develop.
Secondly the cultural argument is flawed. Books rely on CULTURALLY DEPENDENT language. A film can be without words at all, yet still convey it's message. This crosses cultures far easier. Secondly, the book has to be re-written from the ground up to be translated. A film only has to has an additional element added to it - subtitles - to be instantly acessible to other language speakers.
Thirdly, the whole argument about the imagination proves my point. If you show someone a photo, the image is instantly communicated. If you describe it they have to dream it, based on what they've seen. Not as effective.
You keep missing the point, and argue from a taste perspective about which medium you prefer. This has nothing to do with preference, but effectiveness.
You bring up the crushed imagination arguement, yet this is irrelevent to the discussion. Inspiring imagination, and communicating ideas are two different things. Besides you should speak for yourself (sound familiar). Films may crush YOUR imagination, but they do not mine. I keep a regular diet of a variety of artistic mediums, which only serves to inspire. Books, films, art, music, dance all INSPIRE my creative energy.
As this argument is now cyclic, and you seem intent on ignoring the points I've made, by reiterating the same arguments again and again, despite refute, it is now pointless to continue.
Thankyou for proving my point. [img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 05-11-2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]