documentary of the play, it bring in new elements and new presentation that bring you into that movie world, and that is a world of fantasy to me.  On the other hand, you can have a play on fantansy story, but that is different from a movie on the same story. So a play without special effect is NOT a fantasy to you but a movie like Tokyo Story is. What kind of logic is that? Tim Anyway let's take a look here. A play without special effect is NOT a fantasy:  In fact special effect or not does not really matter.  You can have special effect like wire-fu, explosive lighting and sound effect, and lots other special effect in a play, and yet I don't feel the sort of fantasy involvement like enjoying a movie. I know very little about Tokyo Story, but I think that doesn't really matter, as I can tell you that I was immersed into the world of Sense and Sensibility and A Little Women (movie) even when I saw those movie the second time. Whether you actually feel and involved in the fantasy element is not a matter of logic.  There can be no logic in the world of fantasy to start with. It is a matter of experience.  If the majority of others simply don't experience that kind of fantasy when compare movie and play, it doesn't really matter if you can visualise the logic of that. Maybe we should go back one step.  The issue were raised when I disagree your statement that live performance of movie is play.  This would help others to undertand our argument in the right context. If I interprate your message right.  When we use live performance as the reference of audio/HiFi hobby, we can do that to Home Theater hobby as way by simply employ play as the live performance of movie. Details is available in http://www.besthk.com/besthk-cgi/robboard.cgi?action=display&num=3189 To me, play and movie are different media and I won't classify them as equivalent of live performance of a orchestra vs CD release of the same performance.  The fact is, they are DIFFERENT performance to start with, and they are DIFFERENT TYPE of performance as well.  Be reminded that: A good movie actor does not necessarily mean he is a good play actor. A good play director does not necessarily mean he can be a good movie director. So why do you consider a direct relationship as such? Can you judge a CD release of Karajan performance by making reference to a session lead by Tse Wing See, in different location, with different performers, and maybe different music pieces even? And proclaim that the live performance you have attend is the ultimate reference that we should measure with?  I hope not.  I think the master tape of Karajan performance, if available, is a much better reference for that purpose (to evaluate the quality of CD release ). And what about juding a Orchestra performance CD with reference to a live performance of Opera?  So I don't understand why we should adopt play'' as a live performance of moive and use that as a standard to setup our Home Theater. Movie is a live performance itself.  It is a live performance of what the Director has in mind.  When a movie playback is implemented correctly, it should reproduce exactly the same feeling and message of the what the Director want to pass through.  And I don't think, even when available under the same director and storyline, the message are the same.  Take I have a date with Spring for example, I saw the movie (actually LD), the play, and the TV series, all three give me very different feeling, and only the movie give me the sense of fantasy.  I enjoy the play very much but I simply cannot consider my experience of the play as an appropriate reference.  Be reminded that the play and the movie are as close as you can get as they share the same director (or producer?? not 100% sure in 3:00am), some common actor/actress, same storyline (but not the same/identical _script_). Night Wing Founder of The Teen Titans

When movie adopted plays, it is not suppose to be a documentary of the play, it bring in new elements and new presentation that bring you into that movie world, and that is a world of fantasy to me.  On the other hand, you can have a play on fantansy story, but that is different from a movie on the same story. So a play without special effect is NOT a fantasy to you but a movie like Tokyo Story is. What kind of logic is that? Tim

documentary of the play, it bring in new elements and new presentation that bring you into that movie world, and that is a world of fantasy to me.  On the other hand, you can have a play on fantansy story, but that is different from a movie on the same story. So a play without special effect is NOT a fantasy to you but a movie like Tokyo Story is. What kind of logic is that? Tim This is a very abstract and intellectual issue that needs in-depth study in the university.  There is no harm, nevertheless, to present some personal views so no flames please. I don't agree that movie is fantasy to start with.  I consider the one big mission for the creation of movie is to realize a human idea.  So it is up to the viewer to consider whether a particular movie brings him/her a fantasy, or drive home that idea.   To say movie is a fantasy (¤Û·Q¡A¤ÛĹ¡A·Q¹³)is only party true in the context of its making.  I think every producer and director will aim at impressing the viewers that what is happened in the film is realistically true.  A successful film will convince the viewers and bring them through a world,  be it futuristic, comedy, tragic, love or horror, that gives the most realistic feeling possible, a feeling of sharing, absorbing and most importantly, believing to have truly happened.  When I watched The English Patient, Gone with the Wind, Shakespeare In Love, I share that love feeling, in fact many fixed feelings.  When I watched Star War, Matrix, Deep Impact and other science fiction movies, I like to believe they are true happenings and talked about them as if they had truly happened.  They become part of our life, real and not just fantasy. Of course, that includes lousy films as how bad they were made unrealistic. Whether a viewer would regard a particular film as a fantasy or not is up to that viewer's interpretation and level of appreciation.  Yes, some films do fulfil fantasies but surely film is not just fantasy as so categorically labelled. Just my thoughts. TK

fulfil fantasies but surely film is not just fantasy as so categorically labelled. Just my thoughts. TK The discussion started with Nightwing's assertion that : Movie is about fantasy, and if you are looking for a live performance of fantasy, I think you are either crazy or looking for trouble, my friend. which I think is nonsense. If the movie Evita is a fantasy (and it clearly is not a fantasy movie), why the live performance of the musical Evita is not? But I think that is only a mistake in his arguement. What is of more concern to me is that people spend load of money on AV gear simply to watch special effect films such as ID4 or just the special effect of a film (e.g. Titianic). To me, that is exactly the same attitude as someone who buy expensive hifi gear just to play special effect audio CD e.g. T-Rex track and that ALONE. Movie is perhaps the most important art invented in this century, and it is sad to see the ignorance of people who think it is only about fantasy and special effect. Tim

Movie is a live performance itself. Movie is by DEFINITION not a live performance. It is as wrong as saying recorded live broadcast! Tim