Celebrities.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: And listen, Yorick, perfect descriptions are not needed. Just a basic description and your mind supplies the rest. At least for me it does, perhaps you lack the imagination to visualize books so that they just don't affect you as much as movies do?

This has nothing to do with the level of effect on me as a receiver. How do you measure effect anyway?

I'm talking from a communicators perspective. I write words. I write and perform music. I act. I directed a visual multimedia show last month that incorperated dance, music, film, spoken word reading, live visual art (performance painting) and drama. Most of the artforms.

It was a wonderful experience, with exeptional people involved.

Anyhow the point is not to blow a trumpet, but to say that the different artforms communicate totally different things. The beauty of film is that it COMBINES many art forms into one, thus "multitasks" as it were.[/QUOTE]That might be where we are missing each other's points. I'm of the opinion that books are better for the reciever and gives him/her more mental stimulation than a movie does. Whereas you are suddenly talking about how much you enjoyed being the communicator, what has that got to do with the topic of whether movies or books are the better medium?

The discussion was never which one combined the most of the artforms in one. And yes, movies communicate other things than books, which, like I said, provides less mental stimulation from my point of view.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Neb: As for a movie's music, I can imagine that while reading a book too.

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?

[Neb]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: As for a movie's music, I can imagine that while reading a book too.

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?[/QUOTE]And? It's music, it can still have the same effect upon me as another composer's music could have. And if I can think up some original music to experience that way isn't it as good as if I was experiencing some original music that a composer that thought up and added to a movie?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Neb: That might be where we are missing each other's points. I'm of the opinion that books are better for the reciever and gives him/her more mental stimulation than a movie does. Whereas you are suddenly talking about how much you enjoyed being the communicator, what has that got to do with the topic of whether movies or books are the better medium? The discussion was never which one combined the most of the artforms in one. And yes, movies communicate other things than books, which, like I said, provides less mental stimulation from my point of view.

The discussion was on which is the most effective medium. Dramnek stated that books are the only way to convey serious material, or words to the like.

Another quantifiable example is:

EDUCATION.

Teachers can actually measure the sucess of different mediums in transferrance of information. Through tests. Where possible, films are used. When I taught music, I would be playing music for the students (live or recorded), then analysing it wherever possible. It was pointless talking about things they had not heard.

As I posted, talking about music is like dancing about architecture.

Again, film is used for education in History, English, Geography, Sociology, Science and others.

Of course books are used. They are in greater supply, cheaper to make and use, and have existed longer. They are also great for referencing (though a DVD is catching up)

Writing as a medium has existed since the Egyptians. (What were the heiroglyphics BTW? Pictures.) It's had longer to develop as a medium. Film has been around for less than a hundred years. As it develops it gets better and better. Filmed documentaries for example show wildlife in a way a book (even using a picture - visual art) can only grasp at.

[ 05-09-2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Neb: As for a movie's music, I can imagine that while reading a book too.

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?[/QUOTE]And? It's music, it can still have the same effect upon me as another composer's music could have. And if I can think up some original music to experience that way isn't it as good as if I was experiencing some original music that a composer that thought up and added to a movie?[/QUOTE]If you have a film about another culture in another time, the relevent music assists in the translocatory experience. You have to have heard that music to be able to concieve it Neb. This is a pretty fundamental reality.

[uss]

wow, this is a very interesting argument, Neb and Yorick. youre both using groovy words that are difficult to explain .
but about the argument itself.. im not quite sure. boy, this is difficult [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

I don't think either way is better or worse, and I'm very interested in this debate now.
As I see it, movies, books and other such are all a very good medium, it's just to which medium you subscribe.
For example, films give you more or less the whole spectrum, as it uses quite a few of the outward senses, you can see the events hapening and the body language, you can hear the different inflections and the tone of the voice, and if you think about it, the closer it gets to portraying all physical senses (hmmm, imagine smelling a movie [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) the closer it gets to portraying what you see in reality.
For example, if the people at a theatre gave you all a certain type of food that somehow they felt represents the mood of it (Don't ask me how, maybe they think apple pie is happy or something) then if it was true, would it not, as Yorick says, give you a deeper understanding of how the creator wanted it portrayed.
On the other hand, imagine as books giving you a tube to see through, and you, using your own imagination and perception of how events would happen, have to figuratively speaking, push open and widen the end, to give you the whole spectrum that would be wholly based on all the events in your life, and any experiences you've had, so in essence, no two peole have ever read and interpreted a book the same.

Furthermore, books then would almost be personalised, and does it matter if the reader didn't see it exactly the same as the author intended??
I say it doesn't... for with an author, they choose to write, otherwise they would be playwrights etc, so they know that they can give you the bare bones of it and as long as it effects you in the way they intended, I believe the book is successful.

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.

[Ar-Cunin]

This is a message from your friendly announcer:

THE CELEBRITY DISCUSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED

instead Ironworks is proud to bring for your reading pleasure

NEB vs. YORRICK

A titanic struggle about which media is the best.

P.S. Haven't this thread gone just a teensy-weensy bit [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Lord Shield: you're only giving a few examples yourself though. How do you portray what is going on in a aman's mind outsidede of a book? how do you realy the questions they are asking themselves? the doubts?

Narrative.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Lord Shield: you're only giving a few examples yourself though. How do you portray what is going on in a aman's mind outsidede of a book? how do you realy the questions they are asking themselves? the doubts?

Narrative.[/QUOTE]Or not. Think castaway. How much was conveyed without words but with gestures alone?