1-You mention about movies: "We viewers infer what the characters are thinking, feeling, and the motivations behind what they do and say, based on what they say and how they behave on screen" as related to comparisons between what can be shown or told in a book versus what can be shown or told in a movie. How can you truly know what each viewer infers? Did you mean that some viewers get certain messages based upon what they see? I mean because you can't really know what everyone thinks. Could that motive inference also be applied to readers?
2-You said that you often learned tactics in dealing with people from books. Not all films are short and condensed. Movies like Gone with the Wind (which is hours long) shows a lot. So what if it wasn't condensed into 90 minutes? Do you still think that movies cannot give you the same message as a book can?
3-At the ending of your paper you leave us with the statement "a book is forever" so how would you clarify that a book is forever? How would you show examples of that?
4-You said that written text is better at exploring the action, emotions and feelings of love in depth, can you explain that a little better?
5-You said movies are very visceral, and a "brainless" aspect of the entertainment that is portrayed in motion pictures. I don't understand what you mean by brainless and brain dead entertainment. Do you mean that they leave no room for interpretation?
6-You wrote that movies don't let us have insight into what the characters are thinking. Can you explain that because I thought that by seeing the characters and their interactions, we get a better idea of what they are thinking than in a story where it is left up to us.
1-You mention "We viewers infer what they are thinking, feeling, motivations behind what they do and say, based on what they say and how they behave". How can you truly know what each viewer infers? Did you mean that some viewers get certain messages based upon what they see? I mean because you can't really know what everyone thinks. Could that also be applied to readers?
It can be applied to readers and viewers of films as well. However, there exists in the book the possibility of delivering to the reader more information about the characters, their feelings, action and motivations than can be portrayed by actors on the screen. Not every author makes use of those devices, and some authors leave us in the dark about underlying motives even more than do the films. BUT, for the most part, the book can potentially transmit more to the reader than the film can to the viewer. Each genre is still open to interpretation by the reader/viewer, much like the interpretation witnesses place upon actions that they observe. Not even replaying the action again on a video clip for the witnesses always resolves these interpretations conclusively. However, I still assert that the book version transmits more information than does the film version of a story.
2-You said that you often learned tactics in dealing with people. Not all films are short and condensed. Movies like Gone with the Wind (which is hours long) shows a ...
Detail questions answered regarding the difference between books and movies, and their portrayals of stories - which is better is discussed in the solution.