/lit/ - Literature

Eh plays (active narration) have been around forever. Cinema adds photography, which is pretty neat, but if it is only a contest of how your art can be subdivided opera is the highest art form by far.

>>16572017
Probably once I saw blade runner ah shit that was based on a book

>>16572017
When I saw Citizen Kane

I seen 500+ movies. I’ve only read around 60 books. Literature blows cinema out of cinema out of the water

Pic couldn't be any more wrong. Is this what high cinema has to offer? Saints like something my retarded sister would write

cinema (cartoons) –> video games –> literature –> cinema –> literature

>>16572017
what's this? a quote? how un-literary

>>16572017
>bergman
>good

>>16572049
Overrated

>>16572435
It may be overrated, but if they're still watching movies 100 years from now, that is one of the movies they'll be watching (because it puts its finger on the tragedy of 20th century man).

>>16572054
Based. I'm glad you realised.

>>16572017
They're both valid art forms

>>16572017
How do you explain movie adaptations of books always being shit

>>16572113
Based char poster

film doesn't even come close but it certainly has aesthetic value. it's at its best when it's just that, as soon as shit like the text you posted is involved it becomes trash because the quality bar is so low (compared to literature) that it mars the whole.

>>16572017
The first time I watched Persona I paused it after the scene where Alma talks about fucking the guys on the beach and getting an abortion so I could jack off. It was much hotter than the hottest thing I have ever read (Anais Nin writing about fucking her dad), so based on that I would agree that film is a superior medium

>>16572089
I want to meet your sister, is she cute?

>>16572113
you forgot shadow theater

the death of the novel is the death of the triumph of THE INDIVIDUAL. it's fucking tragic.

>>16573502
>what is last man on earth
>what is jaws
>what is jurassic park
>what is the picture of dorian gray (1945)
>what is blade runner

>>16573486
And hecking cute too

>>16572017
Extroverts ruin everything

>>16572017
I don't think you can really say one medium of art is better than the other. Has photography surpassed painting? Has sculpture surpassed theatre? They're different things. I might prefer one over the other but I wouldn't say one is better. The only case in which I would be tempted to say one has surpassed the other is cinema surpassing theatre but I don't really know much about the latter so I don't feel qualified to make that claim.

>>16573961
>what is jurassic park
A bad movie about a cool premise. Is the book even worse?

>>16574229
>I don't think you can really say one medium of art is better than the other.
I can

Best of literature > best of film > best of theatre > best of video games > best of TV

>>16572089
>doesn't know bergman

>>16574370
even Twin Peaks, Dekalog, Bergman's miniseries? Even Breaking Bad or Evangelion are better than the greatest video games honestly

>>16572017
>barely 100 years of history
>"art form"
Bitch sit down

>>16573961
JP was only good for the fx. Blade runner was legitimately shit and a snorefest (both films).
>>16574366
the author has been described as "50th rate" by our dear departed Falstaffian friend

>>16574378
Yes, but I didn't mean modern story-heavy garbage like Red Dead Redemption or The Witcher. Most of the best games have little-to-no dialogue and are often products or pop art by intention, but are unintentional masterpieces. The limitations of early technology transformed mediocre visions into something unique and beautiful. And I love everything Lynch has ever made

>>16574398
Give me some suggestions please, haven't found many games I'd call art

>>16574380
>barely 100 years
I think literature's better, but you're arguing in favour of film right now

>>16572017
This nihilst argument is ridiculous. We know the path of salvation. It is logos. You can't act like a scoundrel and then say god is dead. You want to escape the trap. You must achieve gnosis.

>>16574407
Nah kiddo

>>16572113
based truthposter

>>16572017
Anon, I know you want to post, but follow my advice instead: don't take the bait for this undergrad-tier dick measuring of a thread. OP is a fag, and reading a book will make your day much better than posting here!

>>16574551
based

>>16572039
"based" is the operative word here, because of the addition of video and audio it can expand in meaningful ways on the original concept

>>16572017
>WOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAH DUDE SPACE BIG, SO GOD NOT REAL AND LIFE IS MEANINGLESS !!!!!!!

>>16573961
Overrated films based on extremely overrated genre fiction (and one overrated Wilde book). With the exception of Dorian Grey, none of those books are artful enough to be considered real literature, let alone the greatest of all time. There is no adaptation of Don Quixote, Moby-Dick, or War and Peace better than the original

>>16572591
no it doesn't you fucking pleb. i can tell you don't read.

>>16574827
these reaction images are getting tiresome but still kekd

>>16573961
all shit.

>>16574837
Based

>>16572017
> babby's first existentialism angst
Sure stinks like summer in here!

>>16574366
>A bad movie about a cool premise. Is the book even worse?
No, Crichton is okay. He was the last guy that used to write actual science fiction in the Jules Verne vein. Worth a read even if you shouldn't expect to get anything literary out of it.

>>16572017
When I watched Synecdoche, New York

>>16574398
Examples? Not doubting that there are sone incredible games, but I'm not quite sure what you are describing.

>>16574406
Games aren't art by definition, you stupid mouthbreather.

>>16574904
You're such a little pleb anon, enjoy the journey

>>16573961
Not a single one of the books which were adapted into a film were longer than 300 pages, save for Jurassic Park which was written only to be adapted into a movie. Poor examples, try again.

You cannot bullshit with a book. You know, deep-down, if you understood it, if it resonates with you.
Films are easy to watch, even if they're going over your head and they're boring you.

They will never compare, because they ultimately appeal to different people. The people that are intelligent and patient enough to read books, write the films that you worship.

>>16574911
define art

>>16574920
>The people that are intelligent and patient enough to read books, write the films that you worship.

>>16574925

art, n.: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.

game, n.: an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun.

You play games. You don't play art.

>>16574916
Whatever. But if you want to suggest films which are more profound, go on.

>>16572017
What a fucking dumb self-pitying and shallowly nihilistic monologue. Macbeth does the same thing a billion times better, and obviously is not shallow.

Bergman was unironically a hack who could put together some very nice scenes and cinematographic moments, but was horrible in actually making a movie, functionally putting scenes together, and resulting in the presence of filler in his films which were themselves boring and shallow like so much of what he does.

In all of his films one feels the need to "assume" a meaning, where there is very little beyond some small cinematographic ingenuity in particular scenes!

>>16572054
The problem is that hylics don't have the ability to visualize what they read.
So they will always think cinema is superior because for them it is, they literally can't imagine what it's like to read a book and construct moving images and assign voices to the characters like we do.

>>16574925
Not that guy, but it's not about one definition of art, it's about any definition of art including both games and literature is about as helpful as the categories flora or fauna when deciding what you want to eat.

Anything that even approaches the established definitions of art in games, is when they are least game-like. Walking-simulators, narrative driven etc.

But fundamentally, games are still just immature entertainment because they impose standards of censorship that would be laughed at in real art, because their main feature is gameplay and audience participation (profit). Neither of which have anything to do with any of the transcendent qualities relating to humanity, spirituality, sexuality, etc that are commonplace in real mediums of art.

Even those pictures of anuses in that gallery are more art, because confronting someone with a detailed array of shitholes atleast confronts you with the fact that everyone has one, everyone's varies, confronts you with notions of what we consider repulsive in biology even though it's as natural and necessary as the mouth, etc, you know abstractions thoughts about what it is to be on this planet.

Not bing bing wahoo. Even Dark Souls with its crypto-stoic conflagration mysticism and intriguing lore, is not art. A good game, that I've played to death. But not art. It expresses nothing about reality about us.

>>16574942
lol retard. people still have to make the games, which takes creative skill and imagination.

>>16572017
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

>>16574960
>Even those pictures of anuses in that gallery are more art
ok rabbi.

>>16574960
>Anything that even approaches the established definitions of art in games, is when they are least game-like. Walking-simulators, narrative driven etc.
This
If video games are art is football also?

>>16572017
where were you when you realize M A N G A and A N I M E surpassed literature as an art form?

>>16574954
isnt the three types of the soul just kinda like 'elect' and 'unelect' because of course the hedonists and fornicators are cast out of heaven, as paul says