You underestimate the power of an image.

 

Who? Were you replying to me?

 

Seeing someone die in a movie is much more metally and emotionally impacting compared to reading sad feelings and anger.

 

Seeing someone die right in front of you is even more emotionally impacting. How it is more mentally impacting watching in a movie?

 

But the big problem you guys have with movies is that it's still profit-driven because they're expensive, whereas writing just costs paper and a pencil.

 

:rolleyes: Well if you are making ignorant assumptions here, then where else have you made them? Where did you even draw this conclusion from? Furthermore, what point were you trying to make with it?

 

However, there is skill in making a movie that can express ideas and facts like a book. Among all the movies ever made they are few, but it is very possible.

 

And someday apples will be oranges. It's two different things you are trying to compare.

There will always be people who make themselves supreme because of one thing, whether it's reading a book, or religion, or living in a certain area, but you have to remember that it's only a few people who give everyone else in that group a bad name.

I think anyone would agree with this,

It takes more intelligence to read than to sit and stare at the TV or Computer. So it would probably be a good bet to say the people that read , are on average, more intelligent than the avergage joe.

Who? Were you replying to me?

I was replying to all the TV haters here. If you're a TV hater, then yes, I was replying to you.

 

Seeing someone die right in front of you is even more emotionally impacting. How it is more mentally impacting watching in a movie?

Because I was comparing it to books...? What else would I be talking about? :roll:

 

 

Well if you are making ignorant assumptions here, then where else have you made them? Where did you even draw this conclusion from? Furthermore, what point were you trying to make with it?

I suppose I didn't clearify this enough. Writing is cheap to do, so people will write not for profit but for a deep understanding of a subject and write in a way that's good because they love it. Filmmakers have a higher chance at just targeting what the majority wants making same-old, dull movies and shows like people are saying today.

 

 

And someday apples will be oranges. It's two different things you are trying to compare.

Let me just tell you I'm not some sort of idiot you can easily "roll over" on a online "debate". Just letting you know. Secondly, I was defending that motion pictures are not the "stupid, useless junk" people say they are when comparing to books.

Let me just tell you I'm not some sort of idiot you can easily "roll over" on a online "debate". Just letting you know. Secondly, I was defending that motion pictures are not the "stupid, useless junk" people say they are when comparing to books.

 

Excellent! I look forward to it, and I promise I won't back down either, no matter how petty your threats may get. For the latter part, I don't believe movies are "stupid, useless junk" either.

 

It's not about the merit of the story, nor the intentions of the storyteller. It's not even about the story at all. It's about the method it's conveyed. If you enjoy watching TV more than reading books, then that's fine. That's simply a matter of taste. Don't kid yourself into believing your getting everything out of TV that you could get out of books. They're different on several levels. You're trading the subtleties in a book to gain the obvious from a movie.

 

 

Because I was comparing it to books...? What else would I be talking about? :roll:

 

I shouldn't have written it quite like that. I'm sorry. Those two sentences were unrelated. What I meant was: How is watching someone die in a movie more mentally impacting than in a book?

 

I suppose I didn't clearify this enough. Writing is cheap to do, so people will write not for profit but for a deep understanding of a subject and write in a way that's good because they love it. Filmmakers have a higher chance at just targeting what the majority wants making same-old, dull movies and shows like people are saying today.

 

No, you laid this out as if it was at the core of your opposition's feelings (not to mention it contradicted what you had said before) when that is a farce. It still remains this way, even after your...clearification. If you want to get to the very basics of this, then yes, anybody with a stick and a patch of dirt can suddenly become a writer when the moment strikes. And because of that, there are plenty of crap books stocking the shelves just waiting to steal your money. Filmmakers and writers are both searching for target audiences, and they can do that while still having passion for their work; it's not against the rules. The publishing world puts the same kind of stress on writers as studios put on filmmakers, only for less money.

 

Now, what does all that have to do with anything? Are you saying movies are inferior by choice? That doesn't help your defense as potential doesn't mean much.

I think anyone would agree with this,

It takes more intelligence to read than to sit and stare at the TV or Computer. So it would probably be a good bet to say the people that read , are on average, more intelligent than the avergage joe.

 

Comprehension and intelligence are context dependent.

nothing else compares to books in terms of media

 

unless you have a really bad imagination ;)

nothing else compares to books in terms of media

 

unless you have a really bad imagination ;)

 

Actually, that's not entirely true. I love books, but I've found that action scenes and fights are much better in movies. Somehow the intensity and fast-paced action just can't be captured in words.

nothing else compares to books in terms of media

 

unless you have a really bad imagination ;)

 

Actually, that's not entirely true. I love books, but I've found that action scenes and fights are much better in movies. Somehow the intensity and fast-paced action just can't be captured in words.

 

Movies can rival books ability to describe action (a more visual form of entertainment), but they entirely fail to describe anything of subtle communication or background information that develops and refines characters.

"A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle."

 

I read this in a book once :mrgreen:

 

So while it is true reading is important, the application of your knowledge is what ultimately counts. I would place the teen who gets B-ish grades but uses his/her knowledge of service to help at a soup kitchen more righteous and just then the A+++ student who is ranked number 2 in their class, stays home and studies all day and is a complete [puncture]oftheneedle.

 

And although I think everyone should read and it does help increase your intelligence, it is in what your knowledge is used for especially in assistance to others which gives it value.

 

And anyone who boasts their intelligence because they read is obviously not intelligent because anyone who is intelligent would come to the realization that they know nothing. Which also reminds me, I don't know why some people find the use of philosophical writings as pretentious, it is sad really. I've been told I'm pretentious and snobby for the application of a philosophical work in a logical argument, when what is philosophy other then a system in which to make things into a logical pattern?

And while we're on the subject, what the [bleep] is up with scientists always having to act all sciency? I mean, WHERE DO THEY GET OFF TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE LIKE THEY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

 

The nerve of some people, sheesh.

 

derp de derp, etc, etc.

 

What a stupid premise for a thread. OP should be shot.