[ 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: 30 KB, 316x475, the-time-travelers-wife.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
594263 No.594263 [Reply] [Original]

hey /lit/.
anyone here watch the movie and read the book?

i did, and i felt they should've used Patrick Demsey instead of the other fag they used. and i understand that you have to cut some parts out of a book to fit a movie, but they took off so much from the book the movie had no serious literary value.

discuss.

>> No.594280

Movies don't have literary value. A better way to phrase that would've been "the movie sucked."

>> No.594286
File: 42 KB, 713x613, derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
594286

>>594280
>implying movies have no literary value
i am dissapoint.

>> No.594291

>>594286
Movies don't have literary value because they are not freaking literature. They have a completely different kind of artistic value

>> No.594295

>>594286
>literary
>adjective
>pertaining to or of the nature of books and writings, esp. those classed as literature

>> No.594300

ITT people who are ignorant of or choose to ignore contemporary critical literary theory

>> No.594308
File: 77 KB, 620x520, RAGEEEEEEEEEE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
594308

OP HERE.

THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT PEOPLE ARGUING WHETHER MOVIES HAVE LITERARY VALUE.

PIC RELATED

>> No.594316

>>594286
>movies
>literary value
>literary

They don't. They aren't literature. It's not rocket science.

>> No.594327

movies have exactly as much literary value as books have cinematic value

>> No.594331

films are text, they have literary value. why does this threaten people so much?

>> No.594343

>>594331
>films are text

If you mean that films are text as in written or printed work, then no. Films are not at all text. Screenplays are a professional document, a blueprint almost, outlining the final product which is achieved in a visual medium.

Besides, "literary" literally means "concerned with literature". Films are not literature any way you look at it. That's like saying that bananas are apples.

It's grossly inaccurate.

>> No.594345

>>594343
you eat both bannanas and apples in a similar way do you not?

>> No.594353

>>594345

Is that really your attempt at argument? More importantly, does eating a banana in the same way as an apple ever at any point turn the banana into an apple? If not, what is your point?

>> No.594371

>>594353
I wasn't arguing just illustrating the principle behind a literary critique of film. i'm not alone in this you can google ''film as literature'' and you will find college coursework. I find it to be a valid way of viewing both film and literature and I don't see why they should be segregated.

>> No.594374
File: 64 KB, 800x600, 800px-Rachael_Yamagata2005.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
594374

>>594353
Well, let's just say Brad Pitt was trying to turn Audrey's apple into a banana.
>>594345
On a side note, you have to peel a banana before you eat it.

pic unrelated

>> No.594375

whenever I see the word "wife" in a title of anything, my first impulse is to avoid contact.

why am I even posting?
just sayin' you are all retarded

>> No.594376

I didn't even know there was a movie. I suppose I might as well watch it.

>> No.594385

>>594376
OP here.

you will be disappointed, don't do it.

>> No.594402

>>594371

Film as literature is about the relationship of word and image. Images studied as words are in a literary context. Also, studying film as you would study literature.

It does not in any way mean that film is literary.

Let me give you a lesson on language. Words are carriers of meaning. For a word to be a word it must have a meaning and when spoken or written it must be able to carry its meaning to the reader or listener (which rules out made-up "words" or personal definitions, seeing as you cannot expect the reader or listener to discover your personal meaning without explaining it every time you use it).

Now, this debate about whether a film can be called literary really has nothing to do with the nature of film. It has more to do with the nature of language. "Literary" is a term which concerns "literature" or the "study of literature" or the "association with literary works". To call a film literary would be in essence like calling masturbation "masonry".

>> No.594424

>>594402
The meaning of words is not static, either. You are defending the word ''literary'' as if applying it to film would debase the value of literature itself. This is not true. The images on screen in film are analagous to the words on the page. There is no reason to not compare coded two dimensional message carriers such as words and images. Films have literary qualities and so it can have literary merit. Novels written since the invention of film will most certainly have cinematic qualities as well. Static=/=correct.

>> No.594447

>>594424

Films can have literary qualities and literature can have cinematic qualities. The former falls under "association with literary works". That's not at all the issue here. The issue is that film cannot have "literary value". That's not something that should be under debate. Films don't have literary value because they are not judged as literature, regardless of literary qualities they may have.

And no, words aren't static. But for now, "literary" applies to literature. Maybe in the future, the word will mean "domesticated pet". For now, it applies to literature though.