Celebrities.

Originally posted by Yorick: Why don't you speak for yourself instead of using the royal "WE" and "OUR". Your views reflect yourself, and the effect McEntertainment has on YOU. That is all. So the answer is quite simple. [/QB]

Ad Hominem attack.

Originally posted by Yorick: Don't watch it if it hampers or squashes your creativity. If creativity were really to be squashed it would be because self-righteous dickheads tried to dictate to creatives what is good and bad. "Taste is the enemy of art" is a quote that comes to mind. So to does the quote "To live a creative life one must first lose the fear of being wrong" [/QB]

Ad Hominem attack.

Originally posted by Yorick: If people like a work of art, for WHATEVER reason... nay, if ONE person finds value in some from of art, then that art serves a purpose. Who are YOU to sit there and belittle the diversionary light entertainment people need to break the mundane. Criticising culture never inspired anyone. [/QB]

Criticising existing culture will often inspire people to go out and do something about it. Ideology is the product of criticising existing culture and saying how it could be changed for the “good”.

Originally posted by Yorick: If you want to do something about it, CREATE something. Enter the fray instead of standing on the sidelines moping, whingeing and spreading your miserable little anti-capitalist, anti-religious, anti-popular entertainment, anti-FUN, messages. [/QB]

Ad Hominem attack.

Originally posted by Yorick: This is life. You can't control it, or other peoples. You have to go with the flow.[/QB]

Go tell that one to the majority of the worlds leaders past, future and present.

Originally posted by Yorick: Actually you are wrong. Film is the most powerful medium. Communicates multi-visually (a picture tells a thousand words, a moving picture millions) consciously through verbal language, and emotionally through music. The written word only conveys conscious thought, not the emotional languages that words can never communicate.[/QB]

Straw Man
I did not say that the written word was “the most powerful Medium”; I said that it is impossible to convey complex and deep conscious thought and ideas through Film.
Emotions are not always the route to becoming a better person. It is an emotive reaction for many people to be against new things and change, and controversial ideas like for example the theory of evaluation.
Emotional language and communication is fine where it belongs. In media and politics emotive language and communication leads only to Demagoguery.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Another example, and a question, imagine this: A film shows one person a picture of a man, as percieved by the man who wrote the film. In an adjoining room, a man reads a description to someone else, and this person gets his own image of this character. Now, tell me, which picture is correct??? It'll be interesting fopr me to find out which one you think it is. Whew... that's a bit lengthy, but I think you all got my meaning.

Heh, I'd go for the second one [img]tongue.gif[/img] Mainly because that description, if you're trying to describe what's happening with a book here, also includes that man's thoughts, emotions and viewpoints. While the other one only shows us his surface, really.

Neither of them are correct, however, they are just different ways of doing things. Though I'd prefer the second. The first one actually reeks of propaganda:

Here is a man, this is how he is, so therefore he is good/bad/neither

The second one:

Here is a man, this is how he is, what do you think that says about him?

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Yorick: This is a preposterous statement Neb. Without hearing it, you can only imagine your own music that you're creating, not the composer's. What on earth makes you think otherwise?

Ahhh, while I was writing that long message that statement demonstrates my point perfectly, thank you Yorick.
Is it preposterous?? Isn't it good that he can only imagine music he's creating??
If you think about it, if Neb imagines this music to the book, then is it not the most fitting, at least for him?? And since he is reading it, wouldn't it be more effectual for him to experience it with his music, in a way he can fully relate to and understand, rather than what portrays it best for someone else?? Regardless of whether or not he's the author, won't it be more effectual if Neb can relate to it better, and find his own perspective on the circumstance?

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Talthyr Malkaviel: Another example, and a question, imagine this: A film shows one person a picture of a man, as percieved by the man who wrote the film. In an adjoining room, a man reads a description to someone else, and this person gets his own image of this character. Now, tell me, which picture is correct??? It'll be interesting fopr me to find out which one you think it is. Whew... that's a bit lengthy, but I think you all got my meaning.

Heh, I'd go for the second one [img]tongue.gif[/img] Mainly because that description, if you're trying to describe what's happening with a book here, also includes that man's thoughts, emotions and viewpoints. While the other one only shows us his surface, really.

Neither of them are correct, however, they are just different ways of doing things. Though I'd prefer the second. The first one actually reeks of propaganda:

Here is a man, this is how he is, so therefore he is good/bad/neither

The second one:

Here is a man, this is how he is, what do you think that says about him?[/QUOTE]Perfect... that's just the response I was hoping for... you'd choose the second one (well, it was rather obvious wasn't it!!) because that is the perspective you choose, you hoose to fill things out for yourself so you can better relate to it by your own standards, I'd imagine Yorick prefers to see the creators perspective and then try and interpret what he meant by that, so they are both very valid means to an end (I'm not booing either side) and both require some interpretation.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Why don't you speak for yourself instead of using the royal "WE" and "OUR". Your views reflect yourself, and the effect McEntertainment has on YOU. That is all. So the answer is quite simple.

Ad Hominem attack. [/QUOTE]I don't feel that was an attack really, he was telling the truth, what you percieve is not necessarily a universal truth.

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: If people like a work of art, for WHATEVER reason... nay, if ONE person finds value in some from of art, then that art serves a purpose. Who are YOU to sit there and belittle the diversionary light entertainment people need to break the mundane. Criticising culture never inspired anyone.

Criticising existing culture will often inspire people to go out and do something about it. Ideology is the product of criticising existing culture and saying how it could be changed for the “good”.[/QUOTE]So, in your opinion other people's cultures, as long as they are different are bad?? I sincerely hope that's not what you meant, but that is what it seems like to me, and who are you to say that their culture needs changing?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Celebrities are a hideous manifestation of popular culture, which seems to thrive on banality and ephemeral trivia. The whole celebrity industry is simply driven by the vast egos of the “stars” and the credulous and shallow attitudes of most of the general public, and the people who know how to exploit this for profit.

I love the poem/song in your sig, Dramnek. Where is it from? Could you post the whole lyric?

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: Feeling a bit rushed Yorick? The speed of a book vs the speed of a film can be an advantage. With a book you have the time to soak up everything, to think it over. With a movie all of it is crammed into your skull in a matter of slightly more than an hour in most cases.

As you do with a film. It is the current choice to use the film medium in the fashion it is. If this is a limitation it is because of it's use.

Guys, try to think outside concrete examples and think of the two conceptually. Be hypothetical. If a film were made where the experience lasted as long as a books, think of all it would convey!

PLUS the emotional messages in the music. The wordless brethtaking beauty of a persons face or a skyline.

Again, how do you describe a beautiful man or woman. The way a persons face sits can often seem illogical if decribed in detail. Resorting to "it was beautiful" is lame, and resorts to the subjectivity of the receiver. SHOWING the face, a unique face, that is beautiful because of he inner emotions translating externally is again impossible to truly convey.

The description of a young woman holding in her excitement, eyes misting over in anticipation, lips apart with shallow breaths, and arms outstretched relies on a POINT OF REFERENCE.

A film at times needs none.[/QUOTE]Havent' read most of this thread so apologies if this point already made..

I would always go for the book, over the film, for one simple reason. I get an incredibly sensual pleasure out of the act of reading. It's like eating something really yummy. I can't sleep without I read at least a bit of book - when my eyes move along the page and I make pictures in my head, its just so wonderfully satisfying.

Am I some kind of weirdo, or does anyone else get this? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: Feeling a bit rushed Yorick? The speed of a book vs the speed of a film can be an advantage. With a book you have the time to soak up everything, to think it over. With a movie all of it is crammed into your skull in a matter of slightly more than an hour in most cases.

As you do with a film. It is the current choice to use the film medium in the fashion it is. If this is a limitation it is because of it's use.

Guys, try to think outside concrete examples and think of the two conceptually. Be hypothetical. If a film were made where the experience lasted as long as a books, think of all it would convey!

PLUS the emotional messages in the music. The wordless brethtaking beauty of a persons face or a skyline.

Again, how do you describe a beautiful man or woman. The way a persons face sits can often seem illogical if decribed in detail. Resorting to "it was beautiful" is lame, and resorts to the subjectivity of the receiver. SHOWING the face, a unique face, that is beautiful because of he inner emotions translating externally is again impossible to truly convey.

The description of a young woman holding in her excitement, eyes misting over in anticipation, lips apart with shallow breaths, and arms outstretched relies on a POINT OF REFERENCE.

A film at times needs none.[/QUOTE]Havent' read most of this thread so apologies if this point already made..

I would always go for the book, over the film, for one simple reason. I get an incredibly sensual pleasure out of the act of reading. It's like eating something really yummy. I can't sleep without I read at least a bit of book - when my eyes move along the page and I make pictures in my head, its just so wonderfully satisfying.

Am I some kind of weirdo, or does anyone else get this? [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Fear not feline huntress with the atomic number 47, you are most certainly not alone.
I seriously cannot get to sleep, or it takes me a whole lot longer if I haven't passed my eyes over some literature.
Maybe it's a disease

[Silver Cheetah]

[/qb][/QUOTE]Fear not feline huntress with the atomic number 47, you are most certainly not alone.
I seriously cannot get to sleep, or it takes me a whole lot longer if I haven't passed my eyes over some literature.
Maybe it's a disease [/QB][/QUOTE]

None of that having sex and then rolling over and going straight to sleep nonsense........ Us kittens stick the light on and get stuck in ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ʆë®Ñï†Ý]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: I would always go for the book, over the film, for one simple reason. I get an incredibly sensual pleasure out of the act of reading. It's like eating something really yummy. I can't sleep without I read at least a bit of book - when my eyes move along the page and I make pictures in my head, its just so wonderfully satisfying. Am I some kind of weirdo, or does anyone else get this? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just to pick up on your "when my eyes move along the page and I make pictures in my head* point, do you not feel that reading a book is rather like watching a film inside your head or even living through it? I see the words yet at the same time I don't see the words but live them. I find that after reading a good book I'm absolutely wrung out, from the tears and laughter, the sadness and joy. And you can really feel a book, the emotions and the situation. It just seems easier to empathise with the characters in a book, to gain an understanding of them from inside their head rather than having to guess at whether there was an ulterior motive behind every move on film.

Also, with a book you can linger over the parts that require more absorption which could have a counterpart in film that is over too quickly for you to register properly. The details can be taken in.

As for the music in a film, is it not there to create an atmosphere? Set the scene? A good author can also do that with descriptions. The build ups can be just as tense and exhilerating.

How do you convey the dull throbbing ache in your heart or the way your arms can feel so empty in a film? How do you show that someone is really good at pretending to be something they're not without making them do something that would mean they're not so good at pretending after all?