high culture vs. low culture & books vs movies - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

prettypinkfiary · 05-01-2003, 10:25 AM

I've been involved in ALOT of books vs. movies based on books debates/discussions during my years on the web and more often than not they desentigrate into a veiled high culture vs. low culture debate over the written word and other types of media. it doesn't allways happen but it's pretty safe bet it will if the discussion goes on long enough. usuially somebody says that a book will allways stimulate the mind more efectively than a screen. while i agree that that's often true i will have to say that that has more to do with the funding than the media themselves. there's less financial risk involved in produceing books and therefore more creative risks are taken. In movies more often than not decisions made by the checkbook holding suits tweak things to please and pacify a larger audience. I say that film, when artists are given the proper freedome, can be just as thought provoking and challanging as words on the page.

warrrreagl · 05-01-2003, 10:27 AM

Distribution of media accounts for some of that. If 40 of us had to share the same copy of a book, there would be much less exploration in print.

bender · 05-01-2003, 11:54 AM

Perhaps I just don't understand

aus5tin · 05-01-2003, 01:22 PM

The point you make is valid. Money keeps films from taking risks. The response artists have made is the independant film industry.
I'm renting Kalifornia tonight...You In?
p.s. glad to see you on the project homegirl.

05-01-2003, 10:25 AM	#1 (permalink)
prettypinkfiary Upright Location: Louisianna	high culture vs. low culture & books vs movies I've been involved in ALOT of books vs. movies based on books debates/discussions during my years on the web and more often than not they desentigrate into a veiled high culture vs. low culture debate over the written word and other types of media. it doesn't allways happen but it's pretty safe bet it will if the discussion goes on long enough. usuially somebody says that a book will allways stimulate the mind more efectively than a screen. while i agree that that's often true i will have to say that that has more to do with the funding than the media themselves. there's less financial risk involved in produceing books and therefore more creative risks are taken. In movies more often than not decisions made by the checkbook holding suits tweak things to please and pacify a larger audience. I say that film, when artists are given the proper freedome, can be just as thought provoking and challanging as words on the page. __________________ Makeing the world a better place, one pouff of fairy dust at a time

05-01-2003, 10:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
warrrreagl pinche vato Location: backwater, Third World, land of cotton	Distribution of media accounts for some of that. If 40 of us had to share the same copy of a book, there would be much less exploration in print. __________________ Living is easy with eyes closed.

05-01-2003, 11:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
bender Addict Location: around the corner	Perhaps I just don't understand Last edited by bender; 10-21-2003 at 02:21 PM..

05-01-2003, 01:22 PM	#4 (permalink)
aus5tin Crazy Location: SWLA	indies The point you make is valid. Money keeps films from taking risks. The response artists have made is the independant film industry. I'm renting Kalifornia tonight...You In? p.s. glad to see you on the project homegirl. __________________ You cannot trick a bear... he knows a meal when he sees one.