Dr. S and Dr. E would be proud of this entry. I started this blog because "young journalists should be savvy in all mediums ripe for journalistic writing" which includes blogging. I was told to start one on something that you enjoy talking about, so of course, I did movies. Now I'm actually going to be able to tie this into something I've been discussing in my communication courses at school.
Is the medium truly the message? For instance, say you wait to see a movie at home instead of going to the theater to see it. How you perceive this movie is going to be totally different, that part of the theory I agree with 100%. But does it really change the intended message or moral of the movie? I'm a bit iffy on that.
First, let's look at the differences you'd encounter at a theater as opposed to relaxing in your Laz-E Boy. The most obvious would be the 40 foot screen versus your 40 inch television. (Yeah, I know most people have giant wide screens these days, but stick with me.) Thanks, however, to DVD technology, movies are shown in their orignal widescreen format and the home viewer no longer misses parts of the background due to the sides being cut off.
At home you can easily be distracted since you can pause a movie, but isn't it really the same at the theater? It's actually even worse, if you leave to get some more popcorn or to go to the bathroom, you miss the movie instead of being able to pause it? Wouldn't it be better to have the message interrupted for a few minutes instead of missing vital dialogue?
Either way, if you cough over the extra four bucks to see a movie in the theater instead of waiting another three months to watch it at home, there will be advantages and disadvantages. Is the message changed? I don't really think so. You will get out of the movie what you wish to get out of it, and I think that's all that truly matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment