Again, I’d like to begin my next post of this debate by discussing a couple of my opponents most interesting points if I may?:
Precisely. I thank you for this concession this early in the Debate. "Less is more" because it leaves the rest up to the Imagination!
Now, this was in your reply to your question of "Do you agree that reading books leaves more up to the Imagination than watching movies?
and again, of course it does. But, whether you're watching a movie in B/W or Colour, you're always having the story told to you rather than telling
it yourself like you do upon reading a book. Your proclamation that my response to your question meant I was agreeing with your main point of less is
more (I'm assuming in regards to film watching as this is what the debate is about) is a simple misunderstanding. My reply merely stated that reading
a book leaves more to the imagination than watching a movie. Something that is surely common knowledge is it not?..
So when your reply states that 'less is more because more is left up to the imagination', you don't seem to be making much sense as we're debating
whether watching B/W movies are, on average
, better than watching colour and your reply was in reply to my statement that imagination is ever
more present when reading a book instead of watching a simple movie.
So, in regards to book reading, my answer is again yes. In regards to movie watching, no, sorry, but more is most certainly not less. More is quite
Your next point:
Your original question, in quotes, and some
of my reply:
(Do you agree that in rating good movies, script, acting, story are more important than special-effects, gimmicks and frills?)
Your reply to the above:
Thanks again for the concession. We`re getting somewhere
Less is indeed more.
Skyfloating, I'm afraid to say you may have made a mistake once more....You "accidentally
" left out the rest of what I said in your quoted
Don't worry, here it is....
Yes. Does that mean the "Special-effects, gimmicks and frills" should be discarded/seen as by far less than important? No.
You see, the point I'm trying to make is yes, I agree with you when you ask, do I agree that when rating "good
movies, script, acting, story
are more important than special-effects, gimmicks and frills", but that in no way means that those same special effects, gimmicks and frills as you
put them are much less important or shouldn't be considered at all. The truth is, they are massively
important and even you yourself must
agree with this as you say this in your post (in reply to avatar)......
When you remove the color...what is left of the experience? A shallow and predictable story and mediocre acting.
But you also go onto say this...
I saw Avatar and I was impressed by it the day I saw it.
So, what did it for you upon watching if it wasn't the colour, the "predictable story" or the "mediocre acting?" It seems as though not much is
left other than those special effects, gimmicks and frills from where I am but if I've misunderstood, please do enlighten me but it certainly seems
as though this is what you're saying..
Now, upon continuing with the debate, I have to admit, reading your first point of your most recent post, it seems to beautifully tie in and link with
my next point also.
The Evolution of movie colour
You see, I agree with you that B/W works, I really do, and of course some are going to continue to use B/W from its first appearance to this day. You
can't expect as of right now, everyone to blindly pick either B/W or colour as both have their benefits (see my opening post).
But right now, I'm not here to discuss those benefits anymore, it would be pointless instead I'm going to explain why, how, it's sparsely used, and
might I add, rightly so.
You see, I have to go back to a previous point once more which discussing what the colour of any one film actually represents, and again, once more, I
have to tell you that B/W represents nothing but the past, a time where technology could only take you so far, a time where things were simple, yes,
but a time we no longer live in. It's a time we have evolved away from, thankfully.
So skyfloating, I say to you, The times have changed and you must change with them.
That being so, and contrary to what you say, B/W IS
still a choice, you even showed this as an example in your previous post citing sin city, a
modern day B/W movie, but you see, the reason we have rarities like sin city for example, and it is a rarity, is because after all and once more I
state, the true point of any movie is entertainment. If a movie is no longer entertaining it simply won't be watched which is clearly the opposite of
what the one making the film would want. More viewers equals more money after all.
Just look at the 1970's when blood and gore started featuring more and more, you see, people enjoyed it, they wanted to continue watching as morbid
as it may sound, they wanted to see it. That being so, now look at today's world. It’s more than prominent with films such as the SAW series (and
evolving still with) or various other films which adopt this nature. Reason this has happened is blatantly obvious, it's the viewer’s choice.
That's why B/W has failed as such, the viewers just don't want to go and see one anymore, that's not to say there's anything wrong with it, but
it's a representation of the past. Can you just imagine going to a cinema today and walking into a packed seating area all for nothing but a B/W
movie, I can't..
Colour is what is wanted, and colour is what the viewer now has. I mean, in all honesty, can you ever imagine a world without colour viewing now? No,
simply no. It’s revolutionary; it's a representation of modern times, it’s the present and it's the future. B/W very much so fills in the
"past" slot and the past it is.
Very much so like my above argument, I've touched ever so slightly on this one, but up until now, not discussed it as much as I would have liked, but
again, very much like the above argument, your comments from your post gave me motivation to do so..
As a Rebuttal to my ideas you choose a movie of which I have already conceded that it represents a notable exception? I have already agreed
that there are notable exceptions to the rule, exceptions in which color is absolutely central to the movie. Avatar is such a movie.
Now, that's a very fair point indeed, the reason I cited avatar in the first place was because It was a blistering sea of vast colours and seemingly
fitting in with my points beautifully, but to adhere to what you say above, I'm more than happy to chose something else my for next point, actually,
instead, why not look at not just a single movie, why not a whole type of movies. Maybe the ‘war genre’ perhaps?
You see, this is a perfect example of what I want to say as you can go and watch any war movie in B/W, and there are many of them, and in today's
colourful world also they are still prominent, most notably Saving Private Ryan. Now, it's no word of a lie that if you take away the colour of said
film you've now taken away a vital part of what makes the film what it really was, reasoning for this is because taking the colour away is like
taking away the suspense or taking away the shock value that makes a film of this type so successful. Even taking away the spirit and life of the
Sure, you can still have a good B/W war movie, but nothing captivates the attention of the viewer like one in colour. Seeing the flames and explosions
in all their glory, the gore which is so essential to the shock value, the true expression of fear on ones face. The B/W is simply lifeless, boring,
the impact of the film is no longer so great, it's bland and also unattractive. It just doesn't suit. Colour makes it real which in turn makes it by
far more entertaining for all.
Can B/W work anymore at all?
Yes. Will it be prominently featured in the future, No.
Listen, I'm really not going to sit here and try to convince you that B/W can't work at all anymore because we all know that to be false, but can it
work better than colour in most instances, No.
Action is one such example for this, for an action film to succeed, colour is a vital key, without it, again I proclaim the film becomes more boring
and associated with the seriousness of the past. Like I said in my previous argument, with the colour comes a sea of realism that's essential to
success. Without it, blandness ensues.
Again though, that's not to say it can't work at all, horror being a good example of this, maybe even crime drama also. But as I must keep stating,
it doesn't matter if you can find a couple of examples of it working, in the long run and on average, colour is in the criteria of what one wants
from a movie. Times have changed with movies, and public preferences have also changed to suit as such.
In reply to your Socratic question:
Question 1: Would you prefer choosing your carpet or bedsheet color for your home or having a ready-made one delivered to you?
Of course I would rather choose it myself.
What would be the greatest B/W and
colour movie you've had the privilege to see? (To clarify, please state what is, in your opinion, the best
film of B/W and the best film in colour)
What would be your best method of literally "rating" a movie on how good or bad it is??
Again Skyfloating, I await your next post in excitement..