/lit/ - Literature

>>7195264
>Film is more realistic because you could believe it really happened.
/tv/ please, go to shitpost about your capeshit or something.

>>7195264
You sound like a proper moron. Please leave and stay gone.

Sounds like you don't know shit about either theater or film.
Read a book before you post on the /lit/ board

>>7195274
>>7195278
>>7195281
I've read a few books, I just finished Revolutionary Road. I like that books always have better dialogue than movies, they capture true realism. but without the visual component they're often not as engaging in a world where I can access almost any information in a moment. I know I should read more and I'm trying to, I have what we talk about when we talk about love open in another tab. anyway, you really wanna tell me that that shouty fake-acting stage bullshit engages you as much as a movie? it's ridiculous. people don't act that way in real life, they just don't

>>7195290
Are you an autist? Genuinely curious to hear.

>I like that books always have better dialogue than movies, they capture true realism. but without the visual component they're often not as engaging in a world where I can access almost any information in a moment.

Utter nonsense.

Why does engagement in a medium require 'realism'? What's your obsession with that about?

>>7195264
It's better 3D than the cinema or home systems.

>>7195306
>why does something which is predicated on telling me about humans and the way they interact have to seem real
the same reason you don't make a goofy cartoon about mortality or identity or race politics. how am I supposed to take the message of the movie seriously when its presented to me in the cartoonish package of stage production? the makeup and tights, the stagey voices, the big gestures for the people in the back row. it just seems fake

>>7195290
lmao tbh. Well, since you're earnest and not out to rustle, consider this:
What if the point of theatre was that you knew it wasn't real? That you're seeing scenes acted by actors?

If you're so caught up in whether it is realistic or not, you can't hope to actually enjoy theatre; so look into the theory instead and understand it. Or, look into realist theatre; there was a substantial movement around the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries where plays were written to be as realistic and close to everyday life as feasibly possible.

>>7195290
>like that books always have better dialogue than movies, they capture true realism. but without the visual component they're often not as engaging in a world where I can access almost any information in a moment.

Do you study stem by any chance?

>>7195264
I think you just haven't explored theater enough to find what appeals to you.

>>7195316
>lmao tbh. Well, since you're earnest and not out to rustle, consider this:
>What if the point of theatre was that you knew it wasn't real? That you're seeing scenes acted by actors?
not trying to make fun of you but this is almost exactly the defense people give for pro wrestling lol. but I see what you're saying. I will look into realistic theater >>7195317
nope neet piece of shit. but I do enjoy information, I am a wikipedia scholar

>>7195313
It seems fake to you because you aren't able to abstract from your parochial view of the world and what constitutes what is real.

>>7195331
>not trying to make fun of you but this is almost exactly the defense people give for pro wrestling lol.
Well if you really expect that all theatre is like Sweeney Todd clips you've seen on youtube, I can see why you would immediately think of wrestling. On the other hand, the first thing that comes to my mind when people worship "realism" incessantly are the people who have logged thousands of hours in Battlefield. So pick and choose.
Or look into early post modern theatre. There is little more "real" than something like Pinter's Dumb Waiter

>>7195313
Sometimes the nature of reality is best approached and shown through irreality. Do you know about art movements like surrealism, impressionism, etc.?

>>7195341
oh please, I know what's real and it isn't a bunch of grown men in tights shouting at each other and waving their arms over their heads so fuck you and your condescension. I have taste. I am an aesthete. I'm not some capeshit-loving meatball like you imagine me, I haven't seen a superhero movie since I was like eight.

>>7195354
Form =//= Content

>>7195264

I like plays. I find the exuberance contagious at musicals, I like the spectacle and attractiveness of the actresses dancing. At Shakespearean plays, I like the otherworldliness of it all. The vivid colors of the sets and lighting, the actors grand anachronistic flights of reason and moods, the bellowing too. Thats the extent of my play experience though. Way better than the film adaptations, in both cases.

>>7195354
Can this please be a new copypasta?

>>7195368
no

>>7195354
>I haven't seen a superhero movie since I was like eight.
Yesterday, then?

you whiny little shit, if you dont like them dont watch them.

>>7195380
you really think that's funny?

>>7195380
>anime-faggot acting superior to anyone

how do actors project their voices so loud without a microphone? is it just auditorium acoustics?

tbh I think theatre is much more inherently real than film because it's real life versus reel life. i can watch a person cry on video pretty easily and feel nothing. much harder to not feel anything in real life even when I know it's acting. obviously I like film because it's cheaper (read: free) but theatre will always have the upper hand in terms of emotional impact.

>I think a lot of those faggots just want an excuse to wear tights
truly the height of maturity here. why am i even bothering replying to such an idiot

>>7195420
there's a lot of gays in theater, have you not hung around a lot of theater types?

>>7195264
animation is the best medium tbh
Combining the artistic mastery of drawing, with the story telling of cinematography.

It's just a shame that it's fucking pigeon holed.

>>7195389
you are posting in an anime website bruh

>>7195264
Some of the best theatre isn't about immersion in the sense you are thinking, but rather, theatre is about you interaction -- in a certain sense -- with the actors. In good theatre, the audience should be the anonymous backdrop against which the actors performances are articulated and gain their sense.

>>7195481
no, it changed after gamer-gate, now it's a redpill website

>>7195430
stop posting please

>>7195582
no

>>7195313
Implying juxtaposing serious subject matter with comedic/absurb presentation isnt a god tier dramatic technique


Stay pleb tbh, faggot

A WWE match is essentially a theatrical performance

>>7195354
>actually decribes themself as an aesthete
>cant even comprehend the aesthetic value in experiencing a piece of art which the viewer is meant to be aware they are experiencing art
>actually thinks a piece of art's level a realism determines its aesthetic value

Please either leave this board forever or seriously reconsider your theories on art

>>7195745
>>7195795
ok, but is it possible, just consider this for a moment, that technological progress has allowed us to create better art? not create better art, just render it better. people shouted at early stage productions because they didn't have microphones. it was a product of the technology limiting them. how is that some grand meta statement about how I'm supposed to know I'm experiencing art? they wore makeup and outlandish costumes to get people's attention. it serves a practical purpose, I don't think it's as purposeful and for lack of a better word artistic as you imagine. as a society we throw out whole institutions all the time, isn't it possible that theater is one of them? just imagine being a person sitting here arguing with me that vaudeville is a vital cultural component. imagine arguing that silent film in fact is more artistic than the talkies like many fools did

>>7195807
silent movies are better. they make use of film as a visual medium and not a bastard form of theatre, which it now is. look at all the tarkovsky plebs on this board.