Celebrities.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: A book requires less technology to produce than a film. You cannot expect people to sit and watch films of enormous length, our modern society does just not let that happen on a mass scale nor is it likely that it will yet. Also the limitations do matter, you cannot just go making a film about anything you like, unless you have staggering amounts of money (people who have this however are not likely to devote their lived to making films with it), you must get backing from investors etc. Films are limited by the conventions of our society and our means of production in a way, which books are not. And ultmitely the materiel dominates over all.

Dramnek, for someone that claims to read a lot you are showing a startling lack of imagination. You continue to only see things as they are, not how they could be.

Do we sit and read a book in one sitting? Of course not. We spread it out.

How about a film that is spread out, oh heck, why that already exists. It's called a series! A documentary series about World War II or Polar Bears.

Secondly, you need very little mony to create your own film. You just need a portable camera, and lo'. There you go. All money does is increase the OPTIONS of what that film can contain, and how many people may end up seeing it.

Even so, "Blair witch project" was hardly a big budget project.

A film certainly is no more limited through expectation than a book is. Can a book of one page expect to sell? No. There is an expectation of what a book should entail.

[ 05-12-2002, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Also, you keep seeing the film as something that is viewed enmasse in a cinema. That is how a film is currently displayed when it first opens. You're forgetting TV, DVD/computers, and the actualy portacam itself.

With these new mac laptops, you can write (and edit) a book, edit and display a film, record, edit and mix a record, or use it as an expensive bludgeon.