Books Vs. Movies
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:07pm |
 Coolness: 339895 | Alex just started this in the news section, so i'mma put it in the right place..
Books Versus Movies, alex believes that movies are for stupid people whos (in his words) "vocabulary isn't high enough to understand most good books".. So besides his idiotic sentance structure, does anyone else believe that one artform (video/film) is stupider than literature? To me it's like saying poetry is better than painted art, because poetry requires you think deeply about the words and how they were used, whereas paintings.. well, heh, paintings.. you just look at em, like.. psh, where's the challenge. you know? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Necspress replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:20pm |
 Coolness: 53835 | And where is music supposed to come in all this? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» daFTWin replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:20pm |
 Coolness: 276665 | I think movies are a form of art. They tell a story and when done properly can be better then anything you would of been able to imagine. It brings something to life.
People were against making movies of harry potter, but that turned out fine. You either liked it or you didnt. The lord of the rings books were (to me) a piece of art, I didnt want to see the movies. Only hearing good things and seeing a 10 minute clip of one at costco once made me want to see the movies and I liked it. Altho ive only seen 3/4 of the first one. Reading books is also a way to use your imagination. Something I dont think children are doing enough of anymore. T.V also ruined that. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:36pm |
 Coolness: 69205 | beh
hollywood movies vs books is a better title... hollywood vs books -> hollywood = stupid books ARE much more intellectual than movies though.. but not for the creator, but for the 'user'... its requires much more thought and imagination |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:39pm |
| Coolness: 339895 | i've seen plenty of thought provoking movies to know that they don't pull any more thoughts than books do.
the only difference is with a book you must formulate the image that is spelled out and described to you. that's it. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mali replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:42pm |
 Coolness: 202345 | movies are a form of art
but reading makes you think more.. keeps your mind going movies dont really do that |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:42pm |
| Coolness: 69205 | exactly.. i think its harder on the brain... youre visualising the characters and the setting while thining about the plot and shit at the same time
also.. i think its cool that every persons experience witht the same book is different.. not jsut the interpretation (cuz movies can be interpreted differently by different people too) but what theyimagin the places to look like i know that for me, the LOTR movies completely RUINED my idea of what a hobbit looked like when i re-read the book, all i could see was Viggo Mortensen's ugly faec when Stryder or Aragorn were mentioned |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:43pm |
| Coolness: 339895 | movies envoke more emotion, and are more personal. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:44pm |
| Coolness: 69205 | i dont think so
i can remember crying (yes.. ive cried before) because of situations in books more than i have because of the movie renditions fo these books |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Violence_Inc replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:45pm |
 Coolness: 174320 | any books converted to the form are pretty bad.
There are a few exceptions mind you. Cinematography is a respected artform...just the majority of movies that the populas watches are pop corn movies. I perfer mostly foreign films, because north amercian movies are fucking gay. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:49pm |
| Coolness: 69205 | exactly... i dunno...
movies are good.. i like books more though... thats only my opinion though |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 6:57pm |
| Coolness: 339895 | but butterfly effect got you going, didn't it?
hmmmmmm.... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Necspress replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 7:11pm |
| Coolness: 53835 | Weather is serious in this tread.
K so here… Books! Books let your own imagination feed the imagery the author has created. Movies however can leave little to the imagination. It’s this whole think like: here this is what you’re supposed to imagine. For example The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, I never read the book before and if I do now I would just think back at the movie, instead of having my imagination create the images. And look music fits in this too. If you see “music” as a “book” and “Movies” like a “Music Clip” well it comes back to what I said before. You will always think back at the music clip every time you hear that one specific song. And by this date most popular books have been turned in to movies. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Purple_Lee replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 7:20pm |
 Coolness: 238850 | each artform has its own place. Yes there is still a lot of things that a writer can put forth in a book and not be able to do it in a movie. A writer paint dots in our mind, while our mind fills in the lines. There are some sick books like love to read that i would love to see made into a movie. Another thing one has to take into account is if the person is more of visual or those that find comfort in reading a book themselfs?
Just like any art form it is very much in the eye of the beholder(if any show up i am out of here:lol) Lee |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 8:13pm |
| Coolness: 339895 | films are like all other artforms.. the director is showing everyone his/her take on a given script.
who cares about using your imagination, that's not the point of a film, it might be for books, but you cannot compair the two. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 9:08pm |
 Coolness: 201455 | I appreciate both books and movies; I'd probably say each as their own advantages...
Movies present video and sound that dazzles the senses and lets you sit back and let the story be told to you... Books allow you to really dive into a more complex world that isn't restricted to a 2-3 hour runtime... Movies definitely require less effort on the part of the viewer than a book does on the part of a reader, though. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 9:13pm |
| Coolness: 201455 | From an educational standpoint, however, I believe books are more beneficial to one's intellectual growth than a movie, as reading allows you to flex your imagination and improve your vocabulary... I also find I remember much more information when it has reached me through reading as opposed to through movies/television... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Violence_Inc replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 9:20pm |
| Coolness: 174320 | movies like Kandahar, vidoqc, moulin rouge and requiem for a dream are visually stunning and i doubt my mind could create the scenes shown in the said movies. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 9:43pm |
| Coolness: 339895 | imagine reading a movie like saving private ryan?
somehow i don't think it would have been the same. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» A_Princess replied on Mon Feb 9, 2004 @ 9:47pm |
 Coolness: 62075 | You can't even compare books to movies. Compare say LOTR books to LOTR movies. There you can make comparisons, but not to books and movies in general. Both are great in their own right. |
Books Vs. Movies
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
