Wednesday, January 30, 2013
a) a man soaking his hand into a glass of room temperature water right from a boiling water would feel a cooling sensation while another man soaking his hand into the same room temperature water right from a bucket of ice will feel warmth. they both may argue about what they feel of the water but it does not change the fact that the water is; room temperature.
b) for a start, taste. taste is perception on facts and should be separated. for instance, calling a movie 'tak best' and therefore it is not good is a fallacy. a movie can be 'tak best' but that doesn't make it a bad movie. similarly to you may not understand a movie but that doesn't make the movie stupid.
c) cinema screen is bigger than TV screen. that's a fact. hence by the size itself, the mediums are differentiated. why is then the cinema screen is bigger, simple logic, so you could see better, so you could see more. so, if you don't see more on a cinema screen, at least more than what you see on TV, a cinema screen is pointless. now think about it, how many films you've watched of which if translated into TV does not make any difference in terms of what you see and then ask yourself, what's the point?
d) visuals on the cinema screen alone is not enough for it to be considered good. the narrative needs to be supportive of the visuals, otherwise it is plain masturbation. no one wants to see that. good narrative is based on two things - structure and reasoning (logic). structure will usually address audiences' attention to the plot while reasoning will get them invested. grab the attention, get them invested and sink them with visuals right till the end. that's how i see a film should be.
e) on logic. a movie creates an alternative universe in which it is a different world than the reality and as such logic in reality can't be applied. as such, a movie can be about a man who can fly which does not make sense in real world but if explained carefully would make sense in a movie. don't be confused by that.
f) enough about movies, i've been meaning to write about the 'Allah' issue. i will not impose my personal view on this but i do see the need for everyone to go back to facts instead of burning books, accusing people or proselytizing and other things which are just conjectures, attention seeking and void of facts. in this regard, going back to facts means only one thing, is Allah unique and not interchangeable, is it generic and can be translated or is it not. many other arguments that made this issue complex, for example, one may argue from anecdotal evidences that such is 'culturally' accepted which is... well fair but the way i see it, many people call toothpaste 'Colgate' or cocoa drink 'Milo' and both are 'culturally' accepted. but still that doesn't mean the toothpaste is 'colgate' and the cocoa drink is 'Milo'. right?
g) so that's that for now. i guess, whenever you are confused, remember room temperature water. least you could do is drink it.