/lit/ - Literature

>>12329710
Shakes. The third best writer ever.

>>12329723
>Shakes
Yikes.

>>12329710

Shakespeare's works will continue its influence, while cinema as an artform is already becoming increasingly irrelevant beyond money making disposible entertainment.

>>12329710
>2-The author of the Complete Works of Shakespeare
Meaning that I would live in Shakespear's times?
If so I would prefer to be the director of the movies.

>>12329873

No. It could be a set of plays with the same quality and variety (let’s imagine a contemporary equivalent, but with the same verbal and character-creating capacities). 36 to 37 plays of the same quality as those of Shakespeare.

>>12329710
>2001: a space odissey [sic]
I was actually thinking yesterday about how Kubrick and Shakespeare were similar because they took preexisting stories and changed them into something much better.

>>12329896

But the similarities stop there. Shakespeare’s main genius was one of language, and his dialogues would not fit well into the movie genre. As for Kubrick, his main capacities weren’t with dialogue (even realistic dialogue) and with character analysis, but in the realm of image. Even his most celebrated script (Dr. Strangelove) is somewhat robotic (of course, it’s supposes to be a farce, and anyway Kubrick didn’t write it alone).

Main point is: if you placed a man with Shakespeare’s brain to work with film he wouldn’t be nowhere near as impressive; if you put Kubrick to work with literature he would be impressive either.

But your perceptions real: both saved time by not waiting for original plot ideas, choosing instead to take works that weren’t masterpieces in themselves and flashing them out with their personal talents.

>>12329890
In that case I would gladly write them and direct the movie adaptations myself afterwards.

>>12329710
1

>>12329858

>>12329926
I would like to object on the point of grammar for i am not as knowledgeable at the point of content and would like to hear from someone about it after i clear what i believe to be a misconception about it. The similarity that is talked about abstracts away the medium, if not the similarity of the first can be broken down in the way you try to break down the second("dialogue" to "dialogue" comparison or "image" comparison) since ("movie retelling" =/="book retelling), but if you were to accept the first as a similarity the second must also be a similarity(or it might not be, just not for the reasons you see it as non similar) because the "image" of a director and the "dialogue" of a writer is in their respective mediums their ways to shape the style and the content of observation and after the abstraction is takes out on the medium we do have two similar objects of "effect". Are they similar? Are they isomorphic? That requires content knowledge i don't have but love to hear your idea on it in the way i mention

>>12329710
One shot of writers tears please

>>12329710
Bump

Number 2, hands down.

>>12329710

2, but nobody would care on this day and age even if my plays were as great or even greater than those of Shakespeare. It would only be good to lie in bed alone with my thoughts at night and think: “People don’t know it, but I’m probably the greatest artist of language - humanities greatest invention - that the world has ever seen. I can sleep peacefully: I know my own value”.

>let’s pretend that in this fictitious universe all those films were directed by the same person

I don't think I could cope with such a universe somehow existing, so 2

This is why none of you will be authors. Literature is the communication of the self. There's no point in being a creator if you merely accept a corpus without making it your own.

>>12329710
>let’s pretend that in this fictitious universe all those films were directed by the same person
Demonstrates that Cinema has not produced an artist of the quality and consistency of Shakespeare. Prove me wrong.

>>12333028
Woody Allen

>>12333099
Retarded pick and no argument.

>>12333028
no it doesnt it demonstrates how half-considered op's question is.

>>12333156
Refute me then

>>12333168
i dont care to

>>12333205
Because you're wrong

>>12329710
1. Because I want to live in an era where I don't have to fucking worry about the local shitting grounds leaking into the drinking water and starting a cholera epidemic