Medium is the Message response

This article makes a lot of good points, even if some of McLuhan's theories are slightly confusing.
It is true that we choose different representations to augment an idea we wish to present. Certainly the equivalent message portrayed by a painting would have a much different impact the audience if it was portrayed instead by a performance. I think any artist should consider their options of medium when they are thinking about what they want to portray. However I'm not so sure that it has quite so much power of the message as McLuhan suggests.

McLuhan's idea of "hot" and "cool" medium is confusing as well. It makes sense that film is "hot", but then shouldn't TV then also be "hot"since it uses the same properties? Ignoring that confusing point, the idea of film as a "hot" medium definitely has a lot to say about the people who choose it as a medium for their message and ideas. It completely dominates your senses. It requires your vision, attention, hearing, and your time. Any missing aspect of this allows you more control in terms of your imagination. You could be shown an image combined with sound, but it could be short piece that you can play and replay and go backward and forward without being dependent on the actual time of the piece; you could watch a silent film but with no auditory cues you are left to use your imagination to work with the piece; you could even watch a video, but simply not give it your full attention and the effect is lost somewhat (is this ability to divert our attention elsewhere why TV is considered "cool"?).
So for certain those that choose this medium want to immerse you directly into an experience and not give you much freedom of interpretation on what you are experiencing. They want their subject matter to hit each person in exactly the same way because this is how they ensure the message is less variable.

So thats kind of how I see McLuhan's theory. Rather than being a part of the actual message (though I suppose the choice of medium speaks somewhat to the creator's intent) it is more like an intensity level for the message. Something 'cool' like an abstract painting that is left more open to interpretation would have a low intensity and film, of course, would have a high intensity. And the highest intensity, I suppose, would be the "feelies" from Huxley's Brave New World.
this video is interesting. He talks about his ideas of "cool" and "hot" medium.