@faithisleaping@anarres.family
2026-09-23 11:33 UTC
@redshift@techhub.social They’re different. And they have different strengths. A picture is worth a thousand words and a movie is 24 pictures a second for 2 hours. 😝
But more seriously, movies have a sort of texture to them that just words don’t. When it’s done well and with care, there can be so much more detail packed in there that you may not even consciously notice but it provides texture to the story. When an author tries to provide that much detail, they go on and on and annoy the shit out of you because it’s all description and no story.
But the experience of using your imagination can be good, too. Your brain can fill in the details from a few hints and the exercise gives you more ownership of the experience. With a movie, they show you. With a book, you have both the obligation and the opportunity to fill in those details.
They’re totally different experiences.
Replies (1)
-
@redshift@techhub.social 2026-09-25 03:54
@faithisleaping@anarres.family You’re right there, images have a much different effect on me. It’s less controlled because I know I can’t take in everything all at once but with text I have a pretty good handle on where things are going. You made me think of the movie Stalker (1979) where even as I was watching it I knew I wanted to see it again to get more from it. There’s no reason to gatekeep art and tell people their thing is better because of the medium. It’s better to just let everyone have what works for them.