Can this be refuted?

Can this be refuted?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=i8IGZHcAws8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yeah probably

jaws is better than its book though

>Harry potter
>deep
Pick one

as an english major Id say no not at all. I've read alot Dostoevsky Tolstoy Hemingway Bret Easton Ellis Bukowski,etc. In my opinion often the movie is better than the book like American Psycho much better another example Dexter the books fucking suck the show is way better

what the fuck are you even trying to say

books are not always better than films. Dexter for instance is terrible source material. The books are written like shit. The show is much better and much different

I don't have my photoshop, so imagine a diferent shaped, small complete iceberg above the sea under "Film"

I'd get the money you spent on that degree back if I were you.

I know it lacks grammar and spelling, ironically I was an honor student. Any retard can get an english degree

Yes.

I don't even like HP but I know for a fact the books are better than those gay ass movies.

and aparentlee; any retard has

American Psycho is much better as a book what the fuck?

did you read what I wrote?

If it represents the metal power needed then yes. Otherwise, a lot of books are no better than blog posts.

No but the entire part of the pic above the horizon needs to have a broader color palette and be more vibrant in general for it to be 100% accurate.

People who say this probably don't read books, while they may seem to have more content because of the prose aspects (specially ambientation) films can do the same in subtle way and with a explanatory cinematography.

>as an english major
With that grammar and that taste, you seem like a middle schooler at best, and a conned man at worst.

>In my opinion often the movie is better than the book like American Psycho

The whole thing's a fucking iceberg you dip.

Yeah, that the movie was better and I'm saying it's not true

Yes you enjoy them for different reasons. It's like comparing a painting to a book. For movies you're enjoying someone else's art. Every decision in adapting a book; tone, dialogue, the scene they adapt, and the scenes they don't are carefully calculated. When you read a book you use your imagination, and when you watch an adaption it's the filmmakers' imagination. Your enjoying art much like your enjoying a painting or sculptor.

Different mediums excel at different things. Although, a novel gets into the head of a character much more than a film ever can. A great actor can show us pain and express emotions that resonate with us, but a novel allows a character to have a conversation with the audience over the course of hundreds of pages. Therefore, even the worst novels have three dimensional main characters.

Yes and no.

I'm not even sure if they can be compared to be honest.

Movies use cinematic language, they're the synthesis of multiple different arts simultaneously and is a huge collaborative project

Meanwhile, Novels are still considered the pinnacle of individual art. I can't think of a single good movie that was made by ONE person. Novels empower a single person to express a huge amount and can have far more depth than a movie.

I would say that the greatest novelists are far more talented than the greatest directors, but great movies are not necessarily comparable to great novels. I would probably enjoy the former since they're usually more easily digested and can be appreciated on different levels.

Well if it's a book the size of LOTR obviously there's going to be more in the book, simply because you couldn't recreate every single scene or line of dialogue without it being 25 hours long.

If it's a book like Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption obviously the film can add a lot more to it

books are simply superior for the ability to convey meaning preciously and to any degree of detail necessary. Movies are constrained by too many commercial factors.

>I scrutinise spelling and grammar on Sup Forums posts

Arthouse films can be more difficult to digest than most novels. While commercial movies don't even come close to the depth of an arthouse or a novel.

Movies can be much more subtle than any novel can be, and that's the big difference between them both, and their biggest qualities.

>American Psycho
>movie better than book

This is just wrong

Books are a finite medium and the possibilities with film are nearly endless.

Yeah, you're not really saying anything. movies are an audiovisual medium and books are just text.
Considering a picture is worth a thousand words and films have 24 images per second, and most movies being more or less in the ballpark of 90 minutes, then you have, on average 129,600,000 worth of words in your average movie. A book of about 400 pages has around 100k words.
How can literature even compete?

>Arthouse films can be more difficult to digest than most novels. While commercial movies don't even come close to the depth of an arthouse or a novel.

Read some post-modern fiction and ask yourself if you still believe that.

>one iceberg
>divided by book and film
So does the iceberg represent a narrative and the division represent the market share of the mediums through which the narrative is told?

Fiction is for retards with too much free time. I only read manuals.

Wow, you have just qualified for the top 100 most retarded posts of Sup Forums.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a word can evoke a thousand images.

film > literature > fine art > architecture > music > applied art > comics > video games > anime

You can't tell what a character is thinking is through visuals though, the only way to do it is through narration, which is generally frowned upon.

No it can't. Like for example the word "and" or the word "on". There are literally dozens of words and most of them don't evoke anything.

>films can do the same in subtle way and with a explanatory cinematography.
give an example.

professional wrestling>

I've read. With time you can completely get what the author said, but with art house films you do not, there are endless possibilities of what they meant. Check Post Tenebras Lux by Carlos Reygadas as an example, you'll never get the same meaning with anyone else who have seen this movie, while books usually have a subtext that makes clear what they meant.

>he doesn't spend at least ten (10) hours reading a day
fucking brainlets

the real problem is time and how you process it. with a book you may read a good few pages over the course of a few days-weeks and will most likely spend some the time you arent reading with to think about what youve read.

movies, on the other hand, are, for the most part, designed for one sitting. while the movie is playing, you must pay attention to what is happening without any breaks to analyze what youve just seen until its over. this is why 'film buffs' tend to enjoy watching movies multiple times.

the obvious solution here is television. with tv shows, the new episodes are expected to air in weekly blocks, normally 16-24 episodes a season. this leave a lot of time to go over various themes presented in a book within a cinematographic frame.

TL;DR tv miniseries are the most kino method of adapting literature to the screen

They can't fit everything into a film... The book will always be better. Wait never mind. Have you read Dune?

Clockwork Orange can be given as an example for explanatory cinematography, the shapes of the objects, several alusions to sex, the art direction itself tells a lot of the universe (Cosmopolis is another example, even though those 2 movies were based on novels). About the subtle way, it's a bit difficult to explain, because good movies used both cinematography and dialog to explain, but the example that comes to my mind is the Keeper of Promises (1962) that tackles sex in a brilliant way in 2 scenes where she cheats on his husband (those scenes can be seen as a naturalistic approach to human relations and desire being the human's principal characteristic) not to mention the leftist propaganda during the coup, the police violence, the martirization of normal people for revolutionary purposes, church's oppression against the poor and many other interpretations and themes.

>English major
>doesn't even know how to use commas
I don't believe you

ya for most book adaptations i agree

a-at least the books were good though
"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

It certainly depends on the book- though as a rule it's often correct- but one should still take these sorts of things on a case by case basis. Filmmakers actually find it is easier to make a brilliant film from a merely good or mediocre book, as opposed to making, say, Ulysses, into a masterpiece. It's basically impossible to convert brilliant prose- with all of its allusions, similes and metaphors- into an effective film sequence; they're different art works, and tell a story in a different manner. But, take The Godfather novel and its adaptation: Martin Amis thought that it was as though the book had been rewritten by Nabokov.

>saving the thumbnail
>not posting the entire pasta
Jesus Sup Forums you're getting fucking lazy

I gotta take a shit but I want to respond to this.

>no phone to shitpost with

poopcuck

...

I don't I like mobile Sup Forums.

120 page script vs 300 page novel? Huh...

I'll have to check out this Keeper of Promises movie, is there anywhere I can find it? Is there an HD release?

The pic pretty much sums the experience of both mediums. Books are expansive and intricate just like the sea. It has its own ecosystem. Movies on the other hand profit from visualization. You know IT is right there.

Sometimes books overwhelm, sometimes movies make light of the source material. Regardless, both have its pros and cons and shouldnt be disregarded as either lesser versions of itself.

>but a novel allows a character to have a conversation with the audience over the course of hundreds of pages.
Is there anyway that could be done with film without narration? Is narration really so terrible?

>While commercial movies don't even come close to the depth of an arthouse or a novel.

When it comes to shallow surface level genre entertainment? Absolutely
I dont think theres any sane person who would argue that the Divergent book series or novelizations of spongebob episodes are inherently deeper than a David Lynch film just because they are books.

Incredibly hard to find (I'm brazilian so it was easier for me to watch) because it's extremely underrated, even though it has won the Palm d'Or in 1962, but everyone sucked balls to Exterminating Angel even though this movie is 100 times better. If I find it, I'll post in this thread.

youtube.com/watch?v=i8IGZHcAws8

This is the movie, but I think there are no subtitles.

>arguing apples and oranges of totally different mediums

you can cram more actual content into a book and a movie obviously has sensory advantages
to argue one is inherently better than the other is a child's game

This pleb book was turned into pure kino.

...

This was also the first Southern America movie to be nominated for an Oscar, and it's almost nonexistent, I couldn't find it either.

But it's known as "The Given Word" in America it seems.

It's incredibly good, the director won every single festival he was in, but didn't win the Oscar. I haven't Black Orpheus, but along with this it's also one of the best movies about South America/Brazil, specially because the relations between the greek myth and the carnival.

can someone please put the "a video game" version

If this is for film adaptations of books then yes.
Books give your imagination much more to go off of. Films are limited but still give you a lot to think about.
Books are also longer. You might read what becomes a single 5 to 10 long scene in an hour.

>adapt a book to a film
>the book's better
>adapt a film to a book
>the film's better

Wow. Who'd have thought?

fuck, I meant to respond to this earlier.

I really want to see Black Oprheus, I almost bought it during Criterion's flash sale, but went with Blow Out instead because I knew I liked De Palma. Blow Out was pretty good, but I kind of regret it.

Words are violence, propaganda, words efface reality, cover it up.

A film needs no words.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

An author has to conjure a picture line by line. In the time it would take an author to describe a scene in words, it could already be another scene.

Words lag behind reality and can never catch up.

Books tend to tell the reader a lot more, so plebs interpret that as being "deeper." These same people praise films when they drown the audience in VO narration.

But film as a medium is all about finding other ways to tell the story, rather than just saying it to people (show, don't tell). For example, rather than telling us the minute details of a character's history and backstory, a good films simply let's his actions speak volumes about who he is. That, assisted by the way he's photographed, his costume, his location, all of the mise en scene come together to tell a story volumes deeper than what can be told on the page- simply because it doesn't tell us at all.

Of course, this doesn't stop plebs from assuming "hurr movies r just dumb" and thinking they're smarter for preferring books instead.

>How can literature even compete?

Literature can really get you inside a person's head, perspective taking, live as them, feel as them, empathize with them.

Film can also help you empathize with people but for the most part you're still an outsider looking in. Film does employ voiceovers sometimes or even first person POV camerawork, but literature I think helps you take the place of another person better than film.

This is borne out in that people who read more books are more empathetic to others.

I think an author has much more control with the story while writing a novel as opposed to a script. They can only let you see or hear what they want, while on film it's impossible to conceal visual information or deliver it in parts.

can you imagine a film without music?

music precedes film

>ctrl-f fight club
>0 results
hmmmm

Does 12 Angry Men have music? I honestly don't remember

thanks, film school
where's my coffee? :^)

>that entire chapter about how a girl's pussy is too loose

>that entire chapter about how sonny's giant cock was a perfect fit for it

>For example, rather than telling us the minute details of a character's history and backstory, a good films simply let's his actions speak volumes about who he is. That, assisted by the way he's photographed, his costume, his location, all of the mise en scene come together to tell a story volumes deeper than what can be told on the page- simply because it doesn't tell us at all.

Fantastic post. What movies would you suggest I watch to see some of this executed? What are your favorite movies? I'll have to finally get to There Will Be Blood.

>a good films simply let's his actions speak volumes about who he is
This is just called good storytelling m8. Books are also judged on how well they show instead of tell. I have a feeling you don't read at all or you just read shitty books.

A writer does have more control. With a film, control is given to a director, each actor, cinematographers, set designers, costume designers, editors, musical people, etc. During filming, a scene may not come out exactly how a screenwriter wants, but a screenwriter relinquishes control since it's a team effort. You could say a screenwriter is paid to give up control. But that also explains why many directors prefer to direct their own writing, or will only make films if they are the writer and director.

I haven't seen it. There can be good films without music. Documentaries for example. I don't remember any music in Grizzly Man.

But to remove music from every film, people would realize how important music is to film. That's why I would rank music as preceding film, and even literature. I think music more than anything can evoke "being there" and emotion more than film or literature. And it's the music that often evokes a person's memory of a film, or the peaks of a film.

books can't show, they have to tell

graphic novels can show, comic books can show

a book doesn't have to spell everything out for a reader, it can tell less, but it can't show

>people are actually this retarded

>english major
>can barely even write english

no most of my books end up underwater where i cant see them

Yes. The picture implies a difference in quality when the only real difference is quantity of content.

If the comparison was a TV show and a book, the above and below portions would be equal.

Quality is determined wholly by execution.

The picture is obviously about depth, not quality or quantity

Generally literally writing out what a character is thinking is pretty bad writing as well

>Words are violence, propaganda, words efface reality, cover it up.
what nigga?

Is there a similar one about Sup Forums?

>Depth
>Not an aspect of quality
yeah, so that brain-fart of yours aside, I'm exchanging the implication of the picture for its actual reality:

The ice below the surface is not better, "richer", or more meaningful. There's just MORE OF IT.
Just like how a book, having some hundreds of pages, contains more content than a 90-120 minute movie.

...

>pass the entire franchise to Disney
>neither book nor film is good anymore
>it makes mad dosh tho