Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-09-2002, 02:45 PM   #41
Lord Shield
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
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.
[/QUOTE]and? I thoiught the original argument you were putting forth was how much better TV was, not how short it was

When I read a book I plan to read it, not skim it in an hour to match a film
 
Old 05-09-2002, 02:47 PM   #42
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Neb:
quote:
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![/QUOTE]In the film you can see the subtle responses each person has. The continual shift. 80% of communication is body language. To correctly convey these in written word would be impossible.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:47 PM   #43
Beltazar
Zhentarim Guard
 

Join Date: April 22, 2002
Location: San Anselmo CA
Posts: 306
Quote:
Originally posted by Neb:
quote:
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]|And books are longer, and you run into words that you don't understand, and it takes like 3 days to finish a good 500 page book.. too long for me, I like to finish em sooner [img]tongue.gif[/img] But I'm a very good reader, so why should I be complaining...
__________________
<br /><br />\"Just trust me. After all I\'m the floating, glowing guy.\"
Beltazar is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:49 PM   #44
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Cloudbringer:
quote:
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.
[/QUOTE]Virtual hugs do ideed do nothing next to the real thing. The point of the hug example, is to highlight the limitations of the written word.
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:53 PM   #45
Neb
Account deleted by Request
 

Join Date: May 17, 2001
Location: .
Age: 38
Posts: 8,802
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
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!
Yes, but whether the communicator enjoys it more or not does not make it better at all. In this discussion the communicator is irrelevant in my opinion at least.

Books CAN convey what a film does! It IS possible to describe something to someone who has never before seen anything like it, take Dune for example, have I ever seen huge worms over 400 meters long who travel through the sand of a giant desert? No. Can I still visualize it? YES!

Books are FAR better for communicating persons, thoughts, ideas and perspectives. Movies are best for fast-paced action and special effects, sometimes. I must say that I can easily imagine something that rivals the best special effects on the inside of my mind.

I'd say that movies are better for those who lack a powerful imagination and cannot visualize the book well, books are better for those who have a powerful imagination and are capable of visualizing everything in the book.

Oh and please note that I am not saying "All movies suck! Destroy them and read only books!" I like watching movies, but I'd prefer a good book over a good movie anytime. Except if I was with a bunch of friends, reading a book isn't exactly social activity while watching a movie with someone can be.
Neb is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:53 PM   #46
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Lord Shield:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
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.
[/QUOTE]and? I thoiught the original argument you were putting forth was how much better TV was, not how short it was

When I read a book I plan to read it, not skim it in an hour to match a film
[/QUOTE]Yes but you're comparing apples to oranges this way. It's not an even comparison. The amount of time is crucial. How much is convey in one minute of film, next to one minutes reading worth of writing?
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:54 PM   #47
Neb
Account deleted by Request
 

Join Date: May 17, 2001
Location: .
Age: 38
Posts: 8,802
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Neb:
quote:
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![/QUOTE]In the film you can see the subtle responses each person has. The continual shift. 80% of communication is body language. To correctly convey these in written word would be impossible.[/QUOTE]It ain't completely impossible Yorick. For some writers it might be, but for those that I've encountered so far they've done an admirable job of it. The few things they miss are what isn't included in movies either.
Neb is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:56 PM   #48
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Neb:

Books CAN convey what a film does! It IS possible to describe something to someone who has never before seen anything like it, take Dune for example, have I ever seen huge worms over 400 meters long who travel through the sand of a giant desert? No. Can I still visualize it? YES!
You have seen a worm I take it? And sand?
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:57 PM   #49
Neb
Account deleted by Request
 

Join Date: May 17, 2001
Location: .
Age: 38
Posts: 8,802
Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Shield:
and? I thoiught the original argument you were putting forth was how much better TV was, not how short it was

When I read a book I plan to read it, not skim it in an hour to match a film
Yes but you're comparing apples to oranges this way. It's not an even comparison. The amount of time is crucial. How much is convey in one minute of film, next to one minutes reading worth of writing?[/QUOTE]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.
Neb is offline  
Old 05-09-2002, 02:58 PM   #50
Yorick
Very Mad Bird
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam)
Age: 52
Posts: 9,246
Quote:
Originally posted by Neb:
It ain't completely impossible Yorick. For some writers it might be, but for those that I've encountered so far they've done an admirable job of it. The few things they miss are what isn't included in movies either.
But this is the point! HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?! You have no way of knowing whether it's transmitted properly, because you are the receiver!
__________________

http://www.hughwilson.com
Yorick is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Converting celebrities to the D &D world... D*Ranged Icewind Dale | Heart of Winter | Icewind Dale II Forum 3 05-09-2004 04:12 PM
NPC's Portraits look like Celebrities Jerr Conner Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal 8 03-12-2002 04:10 PM
Celebrities you love to hate Lifetime General Discussion 11 12-12-2001 11:10 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved