Ombre Vivante Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Sigh. Fine I'll bite. You seem to be saying that in all cases a movie is better than a book, due to the effort and manpower that goes into a movie compared to a book. So by this reasoning, a Britney Spears album which takes months to produce, many engineers, mixers, and probably tons of mood-altering medication, is superior to The Beatles' "Please Please Me" which was recorded live in the studio in a day? Watching "Step Up 2 The Streets" is a more enjoyable, fulfilling, enriching experience than reading a Philip Roth novel? And then you go on with the apples and oranges silliness. You're engaging in sophistry at this point. I think you just want to sustain an argument, rather than make any constructive, realistic points. And that's why I said it was getting stupid. And, yet, you fail to understand the basic premise of comparing things which are not alike: your first analogy compares two music recordings. This is what I've been saying all along. THAT is the kind of apt comparison one makes because sound production equals sound production - Beatles songs compared with Britney Spears songs. There is an actual measurement there. That you'd enjoy reading a novel says nothing at all about the bad quality of a song, of a movie, of a painting, or their perceived banality... which is why I have to revert to the simplest and most common and most cliche of analogies. Stop projecting your inability to grasp the simplicity of the idea by saying "it's getting stupid." "Better" cannot be factually qualified. If I enjoyed reading Fear and Loathing more than watching it (which I did), I consider the book better. Okay... and that's verbal graffiti. It's says nil about the movie. If I was looking to read a review or an opinion about a book, I'd go to the thread where books are discussed. However, thinking back to your first sentence there, you're absolutely right. In this instance, when comparing a book and a movie, "better" cannot be factually qualified (although "better" would be factually qualified if you compared two movies). If I enjoy watching Fight Club more than reading it (which I did), I consider the movie better. If you consider all movies more enjoyable - and therefore, in your opinion, better - than all books, good for you. But to say that no matter what, a movie is better, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong, is absurd. The idea that two completely different things are compared is nonsense. However, if we're to compare the effort and undertaking of directing and producing a movie versus that of writing a book, then movies win. Just on the soundtrack alone, the movie wins. A writer doesn't have to bother with composing a score for his book, but a lot of movies are usually accompanied by one; even the trashiest of movies can be enhanced by a score whilst the trashiest of pulp novels don't have that advantage. Anyway, comparing books to movies is like saying, "I hate Spanish architecture, but I love Japanese food." It's what would be termed as a non sequitur. The thought does not follow its initial trajectory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Alright, I'll stay out of any debates with you from now on, as your lofty arguments obviously go over my piddling ability to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Hahaha. Alright, so I tend to get verbose and loquacious (word! ). I wish I could just say, "Comparing things that are unalike doesn't make sense" and its meaning would be carried through without having to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 So just to be clear then, you were being sarcastic when you said all movies were better than books right? Because that wouldn't fit with your theory that you can't compare different mediums. Embarrassed that the joke went over my head at first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 The book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas grabs you from the gitgo. Have you read it ? yeah I have, it's great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 all I watched was Up In The Air with George Clooney. And since I'm one of those saps that loves a good Hollywood love story ending, I of course hated this one. George was godo, and the acting was all good... but it didn't leave me smiling and feeling good. So.... 8/10. Next up: Taking Chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluesky Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 I wasn't sure what to think about Up In the Air, but now that Shawna has said it doesn't have a typical "Hollywood" ending, I'm intrigued. I watched "Whip It" last week. Roller derby is bad ass, even when directed by Drew Barrymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 For what it's worth, I really liked "Up in the Air". Not your usual storyline, and I enjoyed it for that. "It's Complicated" (Steve Martin/ Meryl Streep/Alec Baldwin) was very good. All 3 actors did a pretty fair representation of the drug experience (see the above many many posts) during the old folks get high scene. Good story, and acting that you'd expect from these 3 stars. 8.5/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted July 21, 2010 Report Share Posted July 21, 2010 it's "Taking Chance" for me tonight. I have an awful feeling this one's not going to leave me smiling, either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 I will admit I've never seen a movie that successfully emulated the drug experience, but my problem with Fear and Loathing was that it seemed like emulating the drug experience was one of Gilliam's main goals in making the film. Or at least there were a lot of scenes where that was the only point. For instance, when Duke checks into the hotel and gets freaked out by the woman at the desk, most of the scene is shots of the woman's face distorting and becoming a dinosaur, and I didn't think that the scene evoked the feelings of Duke's fear well enough because it was just too silly. It seemed in many of the scenes that Gilliam was more interested in emulating the drug experience than furthering the plot or building the characters or evoking a feeling in the way I like movies to do. It's different than something like "Requiem for a Dream" where the point isn't for the viewer to feel "druggy," the drugs are just what the plot and characters are built around. This is what I meant by comparing and contrasting. And although I usually like movies more than books, your reasoning for why movies are better seems to me like a good argument for the superiority of books. I don't think either art form is inherently better than the other, but one of the big advantages of books over movies is that you have to fill in the blanks with your own imagination, so a book is more accessible because you can build certain aspects of the book the way you think it should be. I find that reading a book is almost always a more personalized experience than watching a movie. Looking back at your post, that's actually pretty much exactly what you said. So why do you think a more personal experience with a work of art is a bad thing? Just because a movie is less personal doesn't mean it appeals to a wider (worldwider! that should be a word) audience. On the contrary, wouldn't a book appeal to a wider audience because it leaves more room for interpretation? No, for the mere fact that if a book isn't translated to your language, you'd never understand it. It's also a fact images appeal to a wider audience than the written word because there are still illiterate people around the world. Whereas images are universal, even if the idea/concept is regional. As far as personal experiences through different mediums of art goes, I gravitate to all. They're all personal experiences. Solaris, the book, is clinical, calculating, cold, scientific, and it appeals to that kind of mind. Solaris, the movie, is introspective, contemplative, humanistic, and it appeals to that kind of mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb3kHcjusyc So just to be clear then, you were being sarcastic when you said all movies were better than books right? Because that wouldn't fit with your theory that you can't compare different mediums. Embarrassed that the joke went over my head at first Yes, I was being facetious. I try my best to not compare two things that are strictly not alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Shawna I saw Taking Chance a while ago...I remember thinking it was a very long drawn out sad, sad story....too sad actually... Just saw Despicable Me (in 3D)a couple nights ago...LOVED IT!!...I'm not one to like animated movies that much...But I absolutely loved this one though...9/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Thanks for the opinion on despicable me, Laurie....I am thinking of taking the kiddo to see it this weekend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Jenny, here at our theaters it was in 3D....which makes it even more worth the money...it was an extra 3 bucks for 3D, but my work pays for my ticket, which is a nice benefit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I dragged my kid to see Despicable Me yesterday. We both laughed all the way through it. He was still laughing on the ride home. Great way to get your out of your own head for a couple of hours and make you smile. I didn't watch Taking Chance until last night. Yes, it was a very sad subject, and a heartbreaking movie. But it was classy and it showed a part of the military that people don't ever really know about, which was very interesting to me. I never knew about escorts for the casualties. Very moving film, I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluesky Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I thought Despicable Me looked adorable, but I'll have to wait till it's out on DVD. I watched Sid and Nancy. 8/10. It was weird seeing Courtney Love before she was 15 % bones and 85% heroin residue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Shawna, I never knew about escorts for casualties either...I found that part interesting also... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawna Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 15 % bones and 85% heroin residue. you do have a way with descriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 LOL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 24, 2010 Report Share Posted July 24, 2010 No, for the mere fact that if a book isn't translated to your language, you'd never understand it. It's also a fact images appeal to a wider audience than the written word because there are still illiterate people around the world. Whereas images are universal, even if the idea/concept is regional. Ok, that's a good point. I guess the most universal art form would have to be purely visual art like painting then. Maybe music? But yeah, that's a good point, I hadn't thought of illiteracy and lack of translators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted July 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 The Truman Show one of the three really good films Jim Carrey did... (the others being "Man on the Moon" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 The Truman Show one of the three really good films Jim Carrey did... (the others being "Man on the Moon" and "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind") The Cable Guy is his best movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ombre Vivante Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 I thought Despicable Me looked adorable, but I'll have to wait till it's out on DVD. I watched Sid and Nancy. 8/10. It was weird seeing Courtney Love before she was 15 % bones and 85% heroin residue. That was Chloe Webb who played "Nancy Spungen" in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 Yes, but Courtney Love was in it. Played somebody named Gretchen according to IMDb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluesky Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 That was Chloe Webb who played "Nancy Spungen" in the movie. Yes, I know. I can read movie credits Courtney Love auditioned for Nancy, and was considered a top contender for the part, but the studio wanted some one else. Courtney got the role of Nancy's friend Gretchen and was in the movie briefly in a few scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanTurtle Posted July 25, 2010 Report Share Posted July 25, 2010 Just watched Casino Royale for the first time since it came out. It is (In my humble opinion) the best James Bond movie so far. It makes me happy to see Bond the way Ian Fleming intended him to be. Gritty and brutal. And finally, he has a watch that ONLY TELLS TIME! 9.5 out of 10 (It loses half a point for the Chris Cornell song at the start) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now