Celebrities.

[Yorick]

Say you wanted to convey the experience of being frightened. Is it preferable to tell the person how frightened you were, or to put them through a similar experience so they 'get it'.

[Yorick]

Think about love. Do all the words in the world convey the love of a hug?

[Neb]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: Okay, I would like to disagree heavily here. It is difficult for a movie to start as deep thoughts as a book, a book also brings your own imagination into play in order to visualize what you read since the movie provides everything for your senses. A movie can also NEVER have the depth of a book since there you are exposed to both the characters thoughts, emotions and actions whereas in a movie you only see and hear what they do and experience everything from YOUR viewpoint. I say that the written word carries ten times the power of a movie. At least to me it does, I don't know about everyone else. Some people seem incapable of truly.... Experiencing, a book. Unable to enjoy it at all, I take this as overmuch exposure to movies instead of the written word. Those people are not used to using the imagination for the purpose of visualizing the written at all.

Neb, istead of looking at it from a receiver, look at it from the communicators perspective.

If you wanted me to experience your life in Denmark, would you find it easier to write down everything about it, describing the scenery, your emotions, events in totality that affected you? Or would you prefer to actually take me and show me everything as it is, so I could see for myself, and thus share your experience?[/QUOTE]I would do both, which is what books do. That way you'd have both my viewpoints and your own experiences to use when deciding your opinion on Denmark. And music, books and films are not made for the communicator in any way except to earn money, so I SHOULD be looking at it from the reciever's viewpoint. THEY are the one that it's supposed to affect somehow.

And what's easiest is not always what is best.

And a visual media means you don't have to make 3 successive posts in order to ham the point

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Yorick: Think about love. Do all the words in the world convey the love of a hug?

Hmm... not really, that's a good example for your side of the discussion... *HUG* hmmm... and virtual hugs don't do much compared to the real thing, do they? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think what they are saying is that as the one reading/watching they apparently feel more info/feeling is conveyed in the written word.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Yorick: Say you wanted to convey the experience of being frightened. Is it preferable to tell the person how frightened you were, or to put them through a similar experience so they 'get it'.

Again: Let them experience it for themselves and give them my opinion on it as well. That way they've got more than one thing to build their own opinions on.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Yorick: Think about love. Do all the words in the world convey the love of a hug?

I don't quite see the written word/moving picture conflict here. Neither can hug. But a movie can let you see a hug. However a book can let you HEAR about the hug so that you can IMAGINE the hug and VISUALIZE it so that you actually see it as well. AND at the same time it describes how it feels!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Lord Shield: A perfect example of what Neb just said would be 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film portrayed NOTHING of the character's thoughts and motivations, ,whereas the book was tops

Fair call.

How much does the book convey during an hour or so of reading? The same time as it takes to watch the film.

The problem (when it occurs) is not with the medium itself, but the length of TIME given to the film.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Yorick put it beautifully in the post about films.
You seem to be saying that the way anything but books communicate is wrong, or not the right way to do it, but by using every aspect possible, you can tell a story or explain something so much easier, and on so many different levels.

EDIT:Actually, I'm not going to go with either side on this one.
I think I've seen a valid point, and the only point of conflict here is on the choice of the perspective.

[ 05-09-2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Talthyr Malkaviel ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Neb: I would do both, which is what books do. That way you'd have both my viewpoints and your own experiences to use when deciding your opinion on Denmark. And music, books and films are not made for the communicator in any way except to earn money, so I SHOULD be looking at it from the reciever's viewpoint. THEY are the one that it's supposed to affect somehow. And what's easiest is not always what is best.

Eh? Books cannot convey what a film does. Everything happens in your minds eye. This is RELIANT ON WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN. How do you explain a tree to a Tibetan who has never seen a tree? The desert to an Eskimo who's never left Greenland?

I'm using the communicators perspective because that is a more adequate gauge! That's what you have to do to assess the strength of a medium, because you know the picture you wish to convey. Why do you think people get upset or let down by the character in a book translated to film?

Because it differs from the minds eye. The film conveys more. Less is left to the IMAGINATION.

I disagree about your view that art is not made for the communicator. I and many others often create for purley OURSELVES, for the creative release, the satisfaction of expressing. That is a huge reason for doing it!