[ 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: 128 KB, 800x1182, btfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6498176 No.6498176[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

/tv/ here, explain this to me;

When a movie version exists, why the FUCK would you read the book? Convince me you're not sticking to an archaic & inferior artform.

Protip: You can't

>> No.6498184

>>6498176
>/lit/ here, explain this to me;
>When a book version exists, why the FUCK would you watch the movie? Convince me you're not sticking to an contemporary & inferior artform.
>Protip: You can't

>> No.6498198

>>6498176

You're right, I can't. Movies can render an author's vision much better than a book can.

Here's a question for you: When 99.9% of movies are written for the lowest common denominator in our society (gotta make that production budget back), how could you possibly consider them more satisfying than novels? Are you a part of the lowest common denominator?

>> No.6498205

I don't understand why women sacrifice their dignity in order to do things in OP

>> No.6498218

>>6498198
"Can" being the operative word. It's only technically possible in theory. In practice they almost never do since no one's going to do any sort of competent adaptation of a 500+ page book that preserves all the characters and details. No one would watch one either because it would run for several hours.

>> No.6498220
File: 52 KB, 700x419, stirner spooks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6498220

>>6498205
>dignity

really anon

really

>> No.6498221

Why is it always /tv/ fags who want to come here and shitpost?

>> No.6498225

>>6498176
Film is a more passive artform that doesn't require as much attention or thought as reading. Especially when dealing with cape movies.

So it only makes sense that a /tv/ poster would pick the medium that requires the least amount of brain activity.

>> No.6498236

>>6498220
Nice meme, friend.

>> No.6498256

>>6498176
Fuckin Sharky

>> No.6498262

>>6498184
that doesn't work and you know it. Not only do movies take up less time, but they stimulate more of your senses at once. Watching a movie is like a rapidfire workout whereas reading is the equivalent of walking to the bathroom 3 times a day from across the house and calling that your workout.

>> No.6498267
File: 582 KB, 809x807, dontknowshit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6498267

>>6498176
Yes, you are right. Why would you waste weeks of your life when the whole story with all its elements can be consumed in 90 minutes.

>> No.6498426

>>6498176
1. authors have a singular individual voice and therefore a clear uncompromising vision for their art, while movies are reliant on actors, technicians, financial backers, etc. that dilute any individual perspective, aka too many cooks.
2. time limitations. books can be just about any length and still be effective, where movies are limited to basically 2 maybe 3 hours. and short books are often more complicated and powerful than anything ive seen in a 2 hour movie. plus you can go at your own pace.
3. language is more expressive and sophisticated than what can be shown in films.
4. at least blockbuster movies are lazy. its a passive experience. books can obviously be lazy too, as in trashy pulp or dumb ya, but you cant read a book in the background while your folding laundry or browsing the internet. at least books require your attention and keep you engaged.

>> No.6498460

>>6498176
Convince me that this isn't merely a desperate projection of your own intellectual laziness.

Protip: you can't.

>> No.6498464

>>6498176
Convince me retards won't bump the troll thread

Protip: you can't

>> No.6498480

>>6498262
This just might be the very most poorly constructed analogy I've ever come across.

>> No.6498544

>>6498480
shut up nerd you're just bitter you'll never have time to experience real life

>> No.6498553

>>6498176

I know this is bait but fuck it, I'll bite.

Do yourself a favor, OP. Go read Moby-Dick and then come back and tell me that any movie adaptation of Moby-Dick is superior to the novel. Then take your pick of any adaptations of a 'classic' text and repeat the process. Only then will you understand why you're a retarded faggot.

>> No.6498557

>>6498262
So you're saying its better to do an exercise for your full body that last a short while that doing harder exercises for each body part? /fit/ would hate you

also, why are you in such a rush to waste your life? jeez, just sit down, read a book for a few hours and breath a little.

>> No.6498569

>>6498426
Oh anon, you always have to be so difficult. Why can't you go have fun with the other kids bookworm?

>> No.6498570

>>6498557
you don't workout for like 5 hours. You shouldn't be working out for longer than a short movie anyway. Movies and /fit/ are compatible, the only hope /lit/ has is maybe hooking up with /fa/

>> No.6498583
File: 437 KB, 894x1044, Rogues_gallery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6498583

>>6498176
>version
because it's just that, another version

people still write and enjoy reading written works

go back to your board

>> No.6498611

I remember my old roommate raised his eyebrow when he found out I was reviewing a play for the paper. "They still do plays? Seems kind of obsolete."

God, he was a fucking plebe.

>> No.6498617

>>6498570
If you keep working out for 90 mins forever you're gonna be a piece of shit forever. You have to constantly increase and movies don't allow for it. You can start reading 10 mins, then 20 and slowly go up all you want.

>> No.6498630

>>6498176
Because there is a monopoly on a type of person who will still be impressed by the fact that you've gone over and out to read the book.

For people like me that do not receive proper amounts of fun, it's worth it.

>> No.6498631

>>6498617
can't i just watch cleopatra or that soviet version of war & peace if I want to 'push it to the limit'? It's not like you're sitting around for 8 hours to read anyway so I'll have beaten u.

>> No.6498657

>>6498176
They are two entirely different types of experiences, OP. It just boils down to that you're not a reader.

And you should kill yourself.

>> No.6498662

>>6498631
You're still distributing that time in all your senses, while I can dedicate one hour to listening to music and already surpass what you would acomplish.
There is no possible argument in favor of just mixing everything together, whether it is /fit/ or /ck/ or /lgbt/, it's a failure to enjoy life.

>> No.6498668

>>6498176
movies seldom describe emotions and thoughts

>> No.6498672

>>6498668
top plebe

>> No.6498692

The concept of art, nevertheless an artform being archaic is absolutely ridiculous.

>> No.6498718
File: 115 KB, 900x900, 1426356601215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6498718

>>6498583
waiting for your response op

your question is an obvious answer

why walk when you can ride in a hover-round?
why chew when you can blend food?
why fuck girls over superior slimegirl onaholes?

it's up to the individual to figure out what they enjoy

>> No.6498736

Because visual media is shit at relating qualia. All it can really do is show the result of it. Books are in the unique position to be able to describe it in detail.

>> No.6498737
File: 9 KB, 257x196, Mindless.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6498737

Because we exercise our imaginations better than /tv/fags. Books are more thought provoking and detailed than a movie will ever be. I watched interstellar and that was cool, but the space odyssey novels will shit all over interstellar any day.

>> No.6498758

>>6498262
>Not only do movies take up less time, but they stimulate more of your senses at once.

Why the fuck does this even matter? You can't compare two completely different mediums you fucking idiot. One is visual, the other is sensual, they share one common element and nothing else.

There is not a single intelligent person on this entire website.

>> No.6498762

>>6498262
>movies stimulate more of your senses
learn to imagination fucker

>>6498480
what do you expect from an illiterate fuck

>>6498557
wrong

Also this is a troll thread. Just to be clear. /lit/ is the easiest board to troll. Or possibly /lit/ is onto some next level postmodern meta troll that I can't even comprehend, but somehow I doubt it

Also, >>6498205
>women
that's an asian ladyboy bub.

>> No.6498768

>>6498218
That's called a tv show anon, should we stop watching them aswell then?

>> No.6498812

>>6498176
You mean one has had thousands of years of development and innovation, while the other has only been developing for 100~ years.

>> No.6498891

OP is like God. He created the thread and then vanished, and now we're all arguing with each other. God is a meme poster.

>> No.6498940

>>6498426
>authors have a singular individual voice and therefore a clear uncompromising vision for their art, while movies are reliant on actors, technicians, financial backers, etc. that dilute any individual perspective, aka too many cooks.

pleb...Why are you on /lit/? You cant afford to spend time here, you still have a lot of studying to do before you can become a human being.

>> No.6498947

>>6498426
You are as dumb as op.

>> No.6498969

>>6498737
>I watched interstellar and that was cool

Holy shit, you will fit great in /tv/. Are you an avid reader? Do you read only pulp? How can someone who reads a lot think interstellar is a good movie? How can anyone who reads anything good can not be aware of what good movies are?

>> No.6499153

The old film and literature discussion.

Am I the only one who thinks both mediums go hand in hand? Sometimes I can't remember if I read a scene or saw it.

>> No.6499156

>>6498176
>When a movie version exists, why the FUCK would you read the book?
When real life exists, why the fuck does menial shit like 'book or movie' matter? go outside you massive autist

>> No.6499179

>>6498891
Is God the original troll? Is life just an elaborate troll?

>> No.6499191

>>6499179
If God didn't create the world there wouldn't be any memes therefor God used his omniscience to create memes.

>> No.6499196

What the fuck has been going on lately? We've been having a bunch of outsiders shitposting on /lit/ all of a sudden. especially from /tv/. does our mere presence alone bother them?

>> No.6499205

Only proper response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMxB3mujKHc

>> No.6499219

>>6499196
undergrads like to spend the summer here.

>inb4 moot said it doesn't happen
Fuck moot

>> No.6499226

>>6499196
Schools over so all the college kids are posting.

>> No.6499231

>>6499219
>>6499226
>implying I don't spend the whole year here anyway

>> No.6499246

>>6498617
>working out is USELESS unless you become built like a pro body builder and you squat 300kgs and do 250kg deadlift and bench 200kg

>this is what morons actually believe

>> No.6499262

>>6499219
>>6499226
>believing kids can only go to the internet during summer
what is this? 1985?

>> No.6499271

>>6499246
>working out is good if you do whatever you want whenever you want

>> No.6499296

>>6499226
you don't seriously believe more than 2 or 3 posters on this board are actually past the first two years of their undergrad degree, do you?

>> No.6499299

>>6499226
>look at me I'm a mature adult working at Burger King

>> No.6499304

>>6499296
Don't let your newfag show. But if must be a newfag, at least put effort into subtlety.

>> No.6499325

>>6499191
God bless these memes

>> No.6499339

>>6499304
im 'new' in the sense that i exclusively posted on /mu/ for years, and that place is a teenage cesspool. why would the rest of 4chan be any different

>> No.6499368

>>6499296
This is literally the most undergrad post I've ever seen.
>assumes everyone is as dumb as him
>talks about something he knows nothing about

What is it that drives you plebs to talk out your asses about anything that you have no knowledge about? I keep reading thinking one of you must know something about anything but you each proves more vacuous than the last.

When I was an undergrad I would have been embarrassed to be blown the fuck out so often but it doesn't seem to bother you people, Do you come here because it makes you feel sophisticated? You have nothing to add to the conversation, most of you can't even meme well.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ;^)

>> No.6499392

>>6498583
>because it's just that, another version

I agree. A book and a film are two very different things. There's nothing I hate more than faithful adaptations. I think a movie that's adapted from something should always use it's source as a starting off point, not an instruction manual.

>> No.6499405

>>6499368
>cuck i dropped out of a state college so now i can make fun of undergrads

>> No.6499429

>>6498176
People don't only read books for the plot. You can't depict prose in movies/TV. Books are a completely different medium.

>> No.6499441

>>6498737
You're a moron. Just because you have to use your imagination to picture literature, doesn't make it automatically better. The problem with people like you is that it's like you watch a film, (poorly) translate it into text in your head, then you refer to that text and compare them to books. If you're cinematically/visually literate, you'd understand that cinema has as much depth as literature.

Without the visual arts your imagination would be far more limited. Everything you see in your head while reading a book is based on things you've seen. The visual arts (cinema, illustrations, paintings, etc) fill your head with images you would have not seen and expand your imagination.

With the visual arts, you're showing rather than suggesting. Sure you can write a beautiful chapter on a landscape and that's very impressive. Or you can show that landscape visually. Remember, a picture speaks a thousand words.

I'm someone who is as passionate about literature as I am cinema, painting, scultupure and other art forms. As someone who navigates through these fields and "fan bases", I grow tired seeing pissing contests where people try to argue which medium is better when the answer always is that all mediums have their merit and all that matters is artists and how they use their medium(s) to create art.

>> No.6499451

>>6499153
As a visual person who loves written language, I'm with you. Text always turns into image when I read.

>> No.6499457

>>6499339
Because different interest gather different people. Even /r9k/ has an older usberase than /mu/, as depressing as that might be. Lurk for a couple of weeks and you'll see threads about changing majors, how to distinguish the good magazines to get published, and teaching your children to read patritian books. /biz/ also has an older userbase, a lot of threads deal with job oportunities, investing, building debt, getting loans and shit like that.
4chan is big enough to have variety, 4 million daily users according to the main page at some point.

>> No.6499461

>>6499441
>you'd understand that cinema has as much depth as literature
Which works have more depth than one Dostoevsky novella?

>> No.6499482

>>6499461

Pretty much all the biggest films to come out of the New Hollywood movement (Taxi Driver, The Godfather etc.)

You're probably going to spout buzzwords because I'm not naming some obscure foreign titles but whether you like it or not, those films have a lot of depth. Remember, CINEMATIC depth. Based on "one Dostoyevsky novella", I'm assuming you're someone who examines cinema from a literary perspective which is probably why you don't have any respect for the medium.

>> No.6499491

>>6499482
You are so agitated now, it's funny.

>> No.6499492

>>6499457
that's because /r9k/ is in a sense a containment board for people who otherwise would be responsible for evening news murder-suicides

>> No.6499495

>>6498262
If the point of art is to stimulate your senses just go to a dump

its loud, full of visuals and smells

>> No.6499501

If your forum is better, why do they make movies based on books, but not the other way around?

>> No.6499512

>>6499501
Why do western countries have pep rallies for charities centered around "save the africans!" and not the other way around?

>> No.6499526
File: 106 KB, 1024x683, Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6499526

>72 replies, 40 posters

I thought you were better than this, /lit/.

>> No.6499529

>>6499526
now it's 41 posters, good job

>> No.6499539

>>6499491
>LOL U MAD

/lit/ really is turning into /tv/

>> No.6499558

Dress so tight... i almost exploded in my pants!!!
name one movie better than its book and i will abandon this fuckin' habit reading is consuming my life

>> No.6499570

>>6499558
Stalker>roadside picnic

>> No.6499596

It's not about proofing your point to OP
It's about reasoning with yourself
to remind you why and to write it out
to form the argument just for the sake of it
for your ego

>> No.6499639

>>6499558
2001
Clockwork Orange
Barry Lyndon
Ivans Childhood
Stalker
Solaris(arguably)
Satantango
Hiroshima mon amour
Rashomon
Sansho the Bailiff
Ugetsu
Marketa Lazarová
The 39 Steps
Mouchette
Diary of a Country Priest

>> No.6499666

>>6499639
>Solaris, Satantango, Hiroshima mon amour, Marketa Lazarová, Mouchette, Diary of a Country Priest
Nope

>> No.6499674

>>6499639

Solaris is one of my favorite books.

Never seen the movie, do you really think it is better (or at least worth watching if I enjoyed the book)?

>> No.6499684
File: 379 KB, 1366x768, 21-54-2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6499684

>>6499570
>>6499639
Yep You anons have a point there!

>> No.6499703

>>6499674
Clooney movie is shit.
Tarkovskij one is much better, but still, not really that great. Too much of Tarkovskij there. I mean, this worked absolutely for Stalker, but not for Solaris.
Still recommended watch though.

>> No.6499704

>>6498672
are you fucking retarded?

>> No.6499731

>>6499570
>>6499703
Don't forget that the Strugatskys wrote the script for Stalker and were there for the entire filming

>> No.6499732

>>6499674
Of course it is, it's made by fucking Tarkovsky. (But it isn't very true to the sauce material, from what I've heard)

>>6499703
Imo, Solaris is better than Stalker, even though they concentrate on the same things (and Stalker is better in the philosophical area). But Solaris is visually superior, so I prefer that one.

>> No.6499780

>>6499731
From what I heard Strugatskys didn't like what Tarkovskij did with the script. There was a lot of variants for the script and Tarkovskij kept stripping it down to more and more abstract form, as we can see it now.
Don't have time to look for it now.

>>6499732
>Imo, Solaris is better than Stalker, even though they concentrate on the same things (and Stalker is better in the philosophical area). But Solaris is visually superior, so I prefer that one.

My problem is maybe that read book first, then re-read many times and loved it too much. So maybe I'm too attached to it.
Movie isn't bad, not at all, I just think it's not really good adaptation. And I still place it among the best movies (when not relating it directly to the book).

>> No.6499829

>>6499639
I've only read Clockwork Orange out of those, and it was a great book.

Comparing different forms of media is poor though, each deliver different things

>> No.6499849

>>6499731
Does not matter. You said you stop reading If i give you a valid example.

>> No.6499914

>>6499512
Nice straw man bro.

>> No.6499953

>>6499829
2001 is an ok Book while the movie is superb.

Totally different stories IMO.

>> No.6500011

There are books which couldn't properly be made into movies, just like there are movies which could never be understood in the form of a book. They are different mediums. Because you're from /tv/ I'm guessing you're talking about shit like the hunger games.