Jump to content

Rate the Last Movie You've Seen


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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. :D Good story, and acting that you'd expect from these 3 stars. 8.5/10

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

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. :grin:

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

That was Chloe Webb who played "Nancy Spungen" in the movie.

Yes, I know. I can read movie credits :mad:

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...