The stupid debate that ABF made even stupider thread

[A Black Falcon]

That was more directed to ABF.

LOTR is pretty good, but the books... I've actually never read LOTR myself, only had it read to me when I was younger... but comparing fantasy and scifi novels, which I read a lot of, to fantasy/scifi TV and movies... books win by so much that it isn't even funny... sure, some are pretty good and sometimes the movies surpass books. But on the whole...books win. By a significant margin. Fantasy/scifi TV is entertaining, but it just does not seem to reach the level that good fantasy and scifi novels can. Which isn't surprising, given how it's harder for a TV show or movie to reach that level than it is for a novel, as I said before...

Anyway, LOTR is great, but certainly not as good as Star Wars. :) And, as I think we both agree, somewhat overrated by its extreme popularity just like Star Wars is under-rated (though the LOTR trilogy is definitely really good).

You are partially correct. I don't consider one medium to be superior to the other while you do.

If that is so then why do you come off sounding like you prefer the visual medium? And not just here, everywhere else as well. You say that, but your writings suggest differently, I'd say...

Again, visual metaphors can be very difficult to comprehend, and require a great imagination. I could just as easily argue that books require less imagination than some movies because with a book you have everything described to you which leaves very little to the imagination (unless you like to imagine extra stuff, or the book is not descriptive enough), but then I'd be ignoring some facts just like you are. My point? Neither medium inherently requires more or less imagination on part of the viewer. At least no way that can be accurately quantified.

But that argument makes no sense... things are described to you so it requires less imagination? Huh? That completely defies logic... no matter how well something is described in words it is never like a picture. And in words it's not just carefully constructed things (like visual metaphors) that require an imagination, it's pretty much everything... it does not require as much artistic attention and the result is at least as good and often greater. Anyway, the point is that I think that that potential argument of yours has no merit.

I don't believe I ever said anything about visual symbolism being the only kind. Don't be an ABF, Ryan.

You haven't said much good about written works on this subject and haven't said much bad about visual so could anyone be blamed for thinking that?


Anyway, the greater point here isn't about arguing whether books or more intelligent movies are better but to state that most people don't want to bother with either one and would rather indulge in less intelligent forms of entertainment like most movies and television shows... even if movies can come close to or perhaps equal the height books can reach on requiring imagination and being intelligent, most of the time they don't, and it's a whole lot easier to do that in film than in books and it's a whole lot easier to consume the result as well. Even the simplest book requires some amount of concentration and thought, while I don't think I would say the same about TV shows.