That's pretty much a direct quote from a previous post that proved that this very view is a misconception. Maybe check the entire argumentation before posting? But I'll repeat a part of it: "However, it may be just as persuasively argued that in coming to serious terms with a film, much more is being required of us. It is not just a matter of allowing all the perceptual stimuli film offers us to wash over us, any more than the intelligent reading of a book asks no more than that we skim the lines for the gist of the plot." (my italics) Basically what you've done here is to claim that there were no impactful movies made before 1927 (invention of sound on film) and you're therefore ruling out everything made by people like D.W.Griffith (who had a huge impact on film), the entire German expressionism and Soviet Montage, just to name a few. In more recent times there are a huge number of films that are impactful for many reasons, not just because they put music on it. Sorry sir, but your statement is seriously flawed. I like your suggestion however. Turn off the sound and just watch the pictures, but you should always follow that up with 'turn off the picture and just listen to the sound'. Only then you realize how impactful a film is when you put picture and sound together I'm not saying that to enjoy a movie you have to know about certain techniques or what they're called and I've never made such a claim. All I'm saying is that when you watch a movie you notice a bunch of stuff even if you're not aware of it at the time. You just mentioned yourself how you noticed how impactful music is. The only difference is that you stop there. Why not ask some questions? Why is the music so impactful? Why does it work so well with the pictures, the genre, the scene and so on. It's not a huge leap or a difficult task to stop a second and think what is this song actually talking about? (especially when watching Woody Allen movies. Sometimes the lyrics of the songs can change your understanding of the narrative!). Or how about a film like Moulin Rougue. You don't have to be an expert to notice that throughout the movie, as the story becomes more sad, the colors change from very vibrant to dull. It's not difficult to realize that a certain movie is about love and asking a few questions about how the director treats that subject. Your argument is that when you read a book, you put in an effort. You visualize, you imagine, you fill in the blanks, but when you watch a movie, you sit back and watch, but you don't use your brain. You just want to be a zombie for two hours and be entertained. If that's the case, than in what position are you to judge when you're not putting in the same effort? That doesn't seem fair to me.
People that say that everything is laid out in a movie are simply not watching movies where everything is not laid out. That's fine. But The Avengers is not the pinnacle of cinema.
I also listed a bunch of other stuff. Your dismissive response tells me you either didn't read it or can't be assed responding to the points I raised. Whatever, I am slowly getting used to your acerbic, dismissive tone, but I can assure you, there was far more to what I said than "everything is laid out". As for your "Avengers" quip - we are in agreement there buddy. Moon shits all over it. But you can still see the character, hear his voice, see his location and environment, hear the background hum of he air filtration system yadda yadda, all stuff your imagination would have to fill in when reading the book.
Not according to your post. No author states just: "There was two people in a room, they were angry." You don't have to imagine all this extra crap it's told to you.
Yeah you're repeating yourself like I am. Here's the problem: the snobby "coming to serious terms with a film" from Brian McFarlane*, associate professor. As if watching a movie is not done primarily for entertainment purposes. Show me a person "coming to serious terms with a film" and I'll show you 500M just watching it for shits n giggles, and a film student, or a self-titled expert "coming to serious terms with a film". No it's not. My argument is that your brain has to put in an effort to make sense of the scene in a book. When characters walk you provide a floor for them to walk on. When they limp you imagine the movement. In a movie, I am not saying you don't use your brain, I am saying that you don't have to and for the most part, people don't. You can see the floor. You can see the limp. I'm teaching myself film theory. I get exactly what you are saying, and it's for that reason that I hate anything, and I mean anything, that gets in the way of me being absorbed in the story. I'll refrain from getting personal with you -- it's damn tempting -- but the zombie remark is way off base. I have movies I have dissected scene by scene, noting camera angles and moves with the express intent of working out how and why they are effective, locating and downloading and studying the script, watching with and without the sound. One movie in particular came out after I had sketched my own screen play, and was almost identical in construction, so you can only imagine how much analysis went into it. But there's no way in hell I am going to then project my own passion for film making on the general population and demand or infer what I do is what everyone else does or should do. *McFarlane, B. Real and Reel: the education of a film obsessive and critic. <------ I rest my case.
The description of the anger is nowhere near as complete as that portrayed by actors in a visual medium. It would take you an inordinate amount of words to do so.
You already stated what you mean. Not liking your own logic is a bit silly to me. Just curious about why you do it.
I'm just going to post this here again for all those people still trying to say that one is better than the other for some stupid reason. They are both different mediums in which to tell a story. If you prefer a specific medium than great, if not than that's ok too. But your beliefs/likes are not fact.
You're honestly saying that I, an aspiring author, think "the words printed on the paper mean nothing"? Really? Do you see any flaws in your logic? Or are you saying I am spending all this time learning and practicing to do something (writing) that means nothing? Perhaps you think I am unintelligent or a bit slow? Surely I would be better off spending my time doing something useful like bailing out a boat with a sieve?
It's your interpretation of what I said that is flawed. Tragically, irrevocably and no doubt resolutely.
You can't "interpret" the obvious. You laid it out for us. So again, it's not my logic nor interpretation (for there is nothing to interpret), just yours. But whatever you like to believe.
Books and movies are two different mediums. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and can convey the same things but in different ways. Same goes for comics, video games and all that stuff. It all depends on which field you're creating and there are specific ways to do brilliant things with all of them that the others can't as story telling devices. I don't see why movies would be inferior to books in anyway. I personally prefer books but saying they are better is a bit ridiculous. There are some very incredible artistic, entertaining and artistically entertaining films that have been coming out since it broke out. Look at movies (some of my favorites) like Metropolis, Raging Bull, Reservoir Dogs, Dollars Trilogy, Inglorius Bastards, Halloween (classic), Alien (and Aliens), Gangs of New York, Fargo, Big Lewboski, 12 Angry Men (original) and I got more but that's just off the top of my head. I prefer films that normally aren't based on books but there are a lot of amazingly awesome films that push the imagination as much as books do. Heck I love comic books and even if Avengers might not be the top tier movie it doesn't change that its based off a medium where literary and visual meet. And there are a comics out there that are considered art (Watchmen, Maus and all those) And if you need even more proof of the imagination of films Disney, Don Bluth (well when he made movies) and Pixar are normally always putting out very strikingly beautiful animated features that would look right at home in the things any of us book writers could cook up. Obviously different. But still, I don't see why movies of all things would be considered inferior to books. They are like one of the oldest ones in the bunch of story telling mediums (Not counting music or paintings/drawings obviously) and have probably proved the most on why they can be just as creative and imaginative as books.
Keep in mind -- we're discussing imagination here. I don't think books are better than movies and am specifically saying a book requires more imagination than a movie, for the simple fact a movie shows you everything and lets you hear everything, instantly. If you didn't interpret it, why are the words you wrote completely different to the words I wrote? Surely that involves translation or interpretation? They are written words -- just like in a book. In your imagination, you have translated or interpreted my words to mean X. Incorrectly, but let's leave that aside for now. It's irrefutable that the words are different, yes? You could do the same from the dialog in a movie, using your imagination also. They said "X" and once it's been through your life filters you think they mean, "Y". But to describe the room I am sitting in, as I type these exasperated rejoinders to your mind-numbing responses, it would take far more words than I could be bothered reading to describe the scene and me as the MC that you would see in an instant were we filming the scene and showing it visually. When a klaxon sounds in a movie, you know exactly what it sounds like. You can hear it. You could describe a klaxon here and now and there would be 20 different sounds in 20 different people's minds as to what that written klaxon description sounded like. Why? Because all those people are using their own subjective imaginations to translate your words into a sound. To say otherwise is folly. So now we have 20 imaginations engaged. In the movie? None. The klaxon is heard, and everyone hears the same sound. They may describe it differently later, but they are hearing the exact same sound. I could step through countless examples of dress uniform descriptions, facial expression descriptions, panoramic vista descriptions, voice accent descriptions, yadda yadda. In each case, each reader hears or sees their own interpretation of what the author has written. How? Using their imagination. In the movie adaptation of the same story, each of those descriptions and sounds is piped directly into the viewers eyes and ears - there is no imagination involved or necessary whatsoever. That is what I am saying. The words the author writes are critical, but the result is entirely dependent on the imagination of the reader.
If you don't use your imagination when watching a movie, that's fine. I'm not going to argue that you do. But don't make sweeping generalizations about what everyone else does.
The point however is based on the interpretation of what 'using your imagination' means. In the instance of the argument, it means creating the world. Where in a film the objects and noises are defined, in a book the descriptions guide you to your 'own' visualizations. That's not my position, but the interpretation of the point made.
