<p>Let me give you an example. When you go to a movie, do you sometimes find that some individuals are “distracted” by an individual’s outer appearance? Why do you think that there are typically “beautiful” people in movies wearing attractive clothing and make-up? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whose ideas are those though? You can’t be stating that movies convey the same amount of thoughts and messages as books. Movies cut down on the amount of literature and ideas presented within books. </p>
<p>The movie industry is a different type of art. It places a greater emphasis on lighting, character portrayal, and outer appearance to appeal to a wide variety of viewers. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whose perspective is it though, your’s or the director’s?</p>
<p>Well, I’m not really one of those movie people who knows what a great movie, by all those strange standards of cinematography and script and all that means. I’m better with books. But I’ll list ten from this decade I’ve enjoyed immensely: </p>
<p>Moulin Rouge!
The Dark Knight
Mean Girls
The Emperor’s New Groove
Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Finding Nemo
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Sherlock Holmes
Juno</p>
<p>Although some of those I don’t even watch often. I’ve realized that quite a few of my favorite movies come from before 2000.</p>
<p>OMG! I am waiting to rent The Hurt Locker on Tuesday when it comes out on DVD…I am so excited!! I am hoping that it will be as good as all the critics say!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, some actors are beautiful, but that doesn’t distract me if they are good at acting. If they can immerse themselves in the role, their celebrity persona won’t distract. Yes, there are beautiful people to appeal to the masses, but that’s not why I’m appealed to movies. There are just as many trashy (romantic) books—actually more—as there are movies. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Movies can convey the same amount of thoughts. First of all, plays are seen as being able to…and plays are acted out. Movies are very similar to plays. Movies can be just as transcendent and emotionally moving as movies, perhaps even more so. I think you are overgeneralizing. Sure, some movies do dumb it down, but not every movie does. And for the movies that don’t–for the movies that challenge the audience, it is worth it. (Once again, same goes with television, though it is rarer to find there.) </p>
<p>Obviously it’s a different art form. But I don’t see on emphasis on many facets detracts from its artistic value. And while some attempt “to appeal to a wide variety of viewers,” that doesn’t mean it’s bad. Shakespeare wrote for money and to appeal to audiences, but he is considered art. Plus, independent films have less focus on money. (In television, cable shows typically have higher quality due to a smaller reliance on viewers. Especially HBO, SHO, and the like.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whose perspective is it though, yours or the author? Really, it’s just the same thing. I was just using the word how you were using it. But honestly, it can be taken either way. The director has ideas, but so does the viewer…much in the same way the author has ideas, but so does the reader.</p>
<p>I think the average book is better. And I think it’s easier to find a better book. But I think they can both be of paramount intellectual/artistic value. The best movies and the best books are alike in their amazingness, haha.</p>
<p>I’ll just say that I agree with parts of that:) I’m sorry but I just can’t see how a movie can provide the same amount of thought initiation as a movie.</p>
<p>Wartsandall, you are making a huge generalization about an art to which it seems you have not much knowledge. I agree that there may always be a certain depth to really great works of literature which movies may not be able to meet, but many movies come close (to the really great works of literature). Just like a huge amount of movies are meaningless plots, its the same with books. Most books have horrible, worthless plots which provoke little thought and are made purely to entertain the masses (see: The Da Vinci Code, Twilight). Its the same with movies, most movies are made with boring plots to entertain masses. You just haven’t really been exposed to those movies which contain the same amount of complexity as some of the really great works of novels.</p>
<p>If you want a good place to start, I would watch A Serious Man. A film whose general theme is easily gotten, but has so many tiny details that call for analysis.</p>
<p>^I love A Serious Man, and it is serious lacking in buss. I wish Michael Stuhlbarg was being discussed a bit more for Best Actor. The film is so nuanced that it’s crazy. I don’t know if I have seen a film that so perfectly depicts frustration with others and aggravation of situations…and just how everything seems to go downhill at once and you question your own beliefs.</p>
<p>The movie is hilarious and poignant at the same time. Really loved it. I honestly liked it more than No Country For Old Men…</p>