[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 839 KB, 579x724, Aivo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5883526 No.5883526 [Reply] [Original]

convince me why books are better than movies (movies in general not movies based on books)

>> No.5883537

>better
subjective
they both fulfill their own purposes

>> No.5883618

Better in what way exactly? They're two different mediums.

>> No.5884406
File: 142 KB, 960x642, 1345922616007.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5884406

Brain training. You always have to imagine the world in the book, which is more challenging than getting the world delivered like in a movie.

>> No.5884450

>>5883526
if you need people to convince you on that, you're not worth our time.

>> No.5884460

>>5883526
Movies are better for you. No doubt about it.
You're just looking for a diverting drug.

>> No.5884637

>>5884450
or you can teach me and explain to me everything you know and what you are writing off in what I said.

>> No.5884642

They are not better, or worse, they're just different, and require an effort of different elements of the faculty of imagination and understanding.

>> No.5884648

>>5883526
Movies are limited by a lot of factors, while books have no limit.

>> No.5884656

>>5884637
A movie is always a byproduct of a book(many books). You can only fully understand and/or create a book by analyzing other books, not by watching a movie. Therefore you can only go so far under the guidance of a movie.

>> No.5884659

>>5883526
>movies

They're called films.

>> No.5884664

Damn, that picture is beautiful.

Also, one day you'll grow out of comparing mediums.

It's so incredible that I can write "tree" and it looks so much not like a real tree and yet I can make you think of a tree and it's every one of them and no single tree at the same time. How amazing it is to say "it reminded me of something, but then I lost it", to be so specific and evoke meaning around something that is not in any other way tangible. There is a lot of beauty in there.

Stop comparing, though.

>> No.5884704

personally i think (good) movies are amazing because of how they engage the viewer or build character in a hour and a half period

>> No.5884706

>>5883526
No.

>> No.5884717

they usually last longer

>> No.5884849

I can experience more adventure by reading a fantasy novel as opposed to watching a fantasy movie.

I can learn more by reading non-fiction than I ever could by watching documentaries.

I can improve mental acumen, memory, and imagination just through reading, and while I watch movies I limit my imagination to what the directors had in mind.

Tell me again how movies as a whole could ever even come close to books?

>> No.5884862

>>5884849
>I limit my imagination to what the directors had in mind.
by this logic reading is equal in that regard:
>I limit my imagination to what the author had in mind.

>> No.5884875

>>5884862
No, because words have subjective connotations, after all words are subjectively descriptive to a degree, especially with scenery which is based on yurt own experiences with life.

>> No.5884885

>>5884664

That is Ivan Aivazovsky
I am comparing because I am trying to decide if I should focus on film making or writing to express life. I feel like films should be better at expressing because they have images and sound that is tangible and coming from outside of you, and you actually hear and actually see (with books it is all what the reader pictures in their mind) but films are also too short and there is a limit with what you can do and all you are doing is watching a story unravel. It is also a collaborative process and your artistic vision is compromised.


writing is sparse and a lot more raw, and a writer just needs something to write with and on and he's set. You do not need to work your way up, kissing up, to have the funds to write your first sentence about legendary stuff. When you read, the information enters your mind directly and the worlds set in books are more mythic and epic because they are all what you imagine. A lot of the time, (especially with poetry if you can get the feel for it before the short poem ends), it seems like one passage can be read on multiple levels, and if the writer is talented, it is like there are things expressed on multiple levels and what is not written directly is still captured, through word choice or spacing or something like that. I think films are just on one level and in one setting and can only say what they are trying to directly say and nothing else, and there is little art in that.

>> No.5885172

>>5883526
Why should I convince a retard a higher form is better than a lower if he can't appreciate the higher
Its like trying to explain to a dog that its better to hunt squirrels than to eat his own shit. He won't care he just wants the easier one to attain.

>> No.5885210

>>5885172
That higher/lower form is bs.
Books can be complete shit and i think everyone knows examples of this. And there are movies that can be considered great masterpieces.
Of course that if you compare a "refined" literary taste with some shit films like, dunno, Avatar, Stallone, Adam Sandler or whatever you'll come up with that stupid idea, but that only show that you didn't take enough time to take a look at good films. Or you want to feel like special snowflake because everyone watchs Ben Stiller movies and you read Pynchon and Joyce. But i'm just projecting
Literature is simple communication, "literal" messages, Films are aided with images and sound, but the same message can still be communicated. THe only difference is that literature can lead to more interpretations than Films.
I don't like films btw.

>> No.5885234

>>5885210
Think about your favorite movie
Now how does it compare to your favorite book ? Doesn't stack up does it
A 2-3 hour movie is never going to have the same impact as a book that takes days to finish.
There is just no way a great movie can compare to a great book

>> No.5886135

>>5883526
Books can convey objects and ideas that movies never will be able to.

>> No.5886244

>>5886135
like what

>> No.5886277

>>5886244
Theory of Forms and the perfect state for example.

>> No.5886383
File: 460 KB, 560x781, tsukimiya_ringo by kusayusaai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5886383

>>5884664
this, always this.

Also, mediums aren't inherently better, worse or anything. People tend to get confused with cinema and tv and vidja, but they are wrong since they are all the same medium: screens. The last couple of decades the concept of "screenology" for the history of screens has been growing stronger since it simplifies a lot of theories.
http://wro01.wrocenter.pl/erkki/html/erkki_en.html


Also, McLuhan was standing too much in the 60's. The medium doesn't need to be the message. It can, some times is and it may say a lot; but 30 or 40 or 100 years after there can still be interesting creations through it.

>> No.5887288

>>5884885
Guy you quoted here.

Anon, I've been where you are and is not at all fruitless to think about these mediums, but then, it is not a matter of comparisson. Not a matter of saying what is worse or what is best. Think of it like a world map. Each map has its qualities, some preserve form, some preserve area, but you cannot preserve everything from sphere to plane.

You ought to seek what is most essential to the experience you are trying to show through your art. Also, don't get caught in ideas of how these mediums work just because it has been done before. For example, are movies really short? Why not a 15 hour movie? Not commercial, but it's not a new thing to art movies. Or how about a series (which would bring different problems with format). Or another example, why not write abou also use illustrations and imagery? Kurt Vonnegut did it and it worked. Why not a comic book or illustrated book? That's a possibility. Explore these ideas even if you haven't seen them before. Doing films is most certainly a group experience, sure, but also don't let that be a problem to you if that's what you want to do. Work with it. If you choose to go to writing just because you only need pen and paper, that would be just sad.

Try to get your hands on Scupting Wtih Time by Andrei Tarkovsky. It will answer some of your questions.

>> No.5887308

You say that as if you had to make a choice. You can enjoy both movies and books, you know?

>> No.5887451

>>5883526
What filter is that?

>> No.5887519
File: 10 KB, 251x310, Pier_Paolo_Pasolini.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5887519

>>5884885
>mfw he needs to clear his life's work/dreams with strangers on the internet
>mfw he doesn't realize both mediums are valid ways of expressing truth
>mfw he'll never be a world-renowned director and screenwriter while also making it into Bloom's Western canon

>> No.5888604

>>5883526
you must have a shit tier imagination