Celebrities.

Originally posted by Yorick: What do you call a printing press, or the book itself, other than facilities for projecting the medium? A book doesn't exist out of thin air. The only thing that needs nothing but onesself is the spoken word. Oh yes, which can be recorded on film [/QB]

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.

[Yorick]

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 ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: A book can be made from any form of..... scroll, .

Hate to tell you, but a book and a scroll are two very different things, with totally different effects on the imparting of knowledge. I've already inferred this before.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: 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. .

A portable video camera can be carried around. It can display instantaneously.

[/)eathKiller]

Originally posted by Redblueflare: I'm surprised no ones mentioned the part about the media always poking their noses where they don't belong. I'm sure that can get *real* annoying *real* fast!

I can totally agree with you there man...

[Neb]

How about we agree that books and movies rank equally as media? They both have their advantages and drawbacks. I, however, will continue to prefer a good book to a good movie most of the time.

Originally posted by Yorick: 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] [/QB]

You ignored my point about complex and deep ideas. How would you convey the experience contained in the book war and peace in a photo or a film without losing most or all of it?
To create Films requires a highly technologically advanced civilisation.
Again you ignore the practical issues, which are ultimately the most important since materiel determines the ideological.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Neb: How about we agree that books and movies rank equally as media? They both have their advantages and drawbacks. I, however, will continue to prefer a good book to a good movie most of the time.

Thank you, Neb was the first to say it... this is nothing but a matter of preference, not one being better, and besides, we've already taken up enough of Horatio's thread. [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: 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]

You ignored my point about complex and deep ideas. How would you convey the experience contained in the book war and peace in a photo or a film without losing most or all of it?
To create Films requires a highly technologically advanced civilisation.
Again you ignore the practical issues, which are ultimately the most important since materiel determines the ideological.[/QB][/QUOTE]Making a film out of a book is hardly a good comparison. It is like making a dance out of macrame. One artform reworking another.

The practical issues I have not ignored, but pointed out that both books and writing need technology. A point you failed to grasp it seems. Just because one technology was acessed earlier does not make it better. Later technology surpasses early technology in nearly all fields.

Books need technolgy to exist. Pure and simply.

Regarding complex ideas, did not theatre for millenia convey complex ideas? Did not plays and performed poetry contain philosophy? Did not the Celtic Bards keep history and knowledge stored in songs?

Indeed, the Celts scorned writing, believing it weakened the memory. Certainly they had a point. When all the history is in memory, it is not forgotten in some dusty tome, ignored for years.

If you wanted to convey your ideas, and were prepared to use film in an open minded manner, rather than be restricted by convention or the dictates of the market, you could make a film about anything, for any reason. I'm not going to do your thinking for you.

Originally posted by Yorick: Making a film out of a book is hardly a good comparison. It is like making a dance out of macrame. One artform reworking another. The practical issues I have not ignored, but pointed out that both books and writing need technology. A point you failed to grasp it seems. Just because one technology was acessed earlier does not make it better. Later technology surpasses early technology in nearly all fields. Books need technolgy to exist. Pure and simply. Regarding complex ideas, did not theatre for millenia convey complex ideas? Did not plays and performed poetry contain philosophy? Did not the Celtic Bards keep history and knowledge stored in songs? Indeed, the Celts scorned writing, believing it weakened the memory. Certainly they had a point. When all the history is in memory, it is not forgotten in some dusty tome, ignored for years. If you wanted to convey your ideas, and were prepared to use film in an open minded manner, rather than be restricted by convention or the dictates of the market, you could make a film about anything, for any reason. I'm not going to do your thinking for you.[/QB]

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.