Film is objectively the most shallow form of storytelling and is the lowest form of art

Film is objectively the most shallow form of storytelling and is the lowest form of art.

Prove me wrong.

videogames are worse

but yea films suffer due to their high production costs and need for tons of collaboration, it's why there are so few great or even good works

Wrong on both accounts. Painting and sculpting are the most shallow forms of storytelling and photography is the lowest form of art

ur wrong fagget
it includes Sup Forums and /lit/ and is superior
fagget

...

>most shallow
From a technical standpoint this sort of meaningless. It's still an enormously involved process involving artists from several different trades combining their talents to pull off a high wire act of actually making a film come together. And then maybe good or great.

So a great film has multiple facets of artistic exhibition like costuming, editing, photography, acting, set design, score, etc. Compare that to a guy strumming three cords on a guitar?

>shallow
>lowest
nice adjectives you have there, brainlet. Next time you want to feel superior try actually being it.

The burden of proof is on you, nigger.

Video games are the most complicated artform and the interactive nature allows for true immersion.

film is literally one dimension better than any other artform since it's in 3d

Even if you were to argue this as to form as such, there is nothing in practice in film that even remotely compares with the masterpieces of the great painters and plastic artists. When we come to a comparison with literature the chasm is even wider. Anybody who thinks there is anything the least bit profound in films (and I include the much-vaunted black and white ones in this) as compared with that, cannot have read and understood a single verse of Shakespeare, Milton, Spenser, or Chaucer, or so much as touched a great novel like Tom Jones.

>videogames are worse
they are literally film, but with semi-interaction, giving you feeling of having influence on story

Film can include music, editing and cinematography to aid in storytelling. Literature only has text to describe all things to the reader.

>Film is objectively the most shallow form of storytelling
And that's exactly why it's one of the higher forms of art.

Film is unironically the highest form of art.
It actually contains all the other art forms in all the filmmaking elements, from fashion, architecture, design to music, photography, the writing and performances.

With film, you can express your idea in just one single frame through framing and composition, the performance, production design, sound
etc, while in for example books you have to use multiple sentences just to set up the scene and for the viewer to grasp what's happening. Reading words linearly is not efficient and it relies too much on the readers imagination, film is just much more efficient. Also with film you get an exact fixed artistic expression that can’t be changed, while in books half of the narrative is in every readers imagination and it's entirely different with every single person.

Now that doesn't mean everyone uses the medium to it's maximum potential, but it has a far greater potential than any other art form.

they are literally toys for children

Video games aren't art at all.

and future of film. sooner or later VR/interaction gonna be in movies

A film is, for the most part, fundamentally incapable of directly expressing the inner emotions of the mind. At the most it can show the inner life by proxy, by means of facial expressions. How could you express the beauty of Keats' "Ode to a Nightingale" in a film? Or even his letters, for that matter? They are pure expressions of the inward mind.

A film is devoid of the combination between music and language which gives rise to what we call poetry, and the sublime emotions of mind which it lives in and expresses.

What a film can show is limited by whatever the technology of the times can show; a work of literature lives in the infinite.

A film is a more cumbrous instrument than the written word. Homer is constantly interspersing reflections on the men who die in battle, and the family they leave behind, in his compositions, and exciting our compassion by it; how could a film ever accomplish this?

Literature exercises and improves the imagination; film does your thinking for you.

Anybody who gets his ideas of what a Homeric hero is, and of the Homeric spirit, from the film Troy, rather than from the works of Homer himself, is like a blind man declaring that he knows the meaning of colour. The best actor will never rise to the truth of an original creation, and most of them are abysmally poor at their profession.

Art isn't about immersion or interaction you mongoloid.

there's still video games and comic books

OP here, you summed it up perfectly.

I completely forgot about comics, yes they're the worst, and this is coming from a former avid reader. I think video games have the potential to be much more than they are, they're still in their infancy, like how the first movies were just of Cowboys fighting in a bar or something. Honestly I've seen far more interesting and original stories in Videogames than I have in movies in the last ten years.

Lmfao homer performed aka acted his works out you stupid fucking plebian, it was not even written down

The ancient Greeks would have loved film you fucking faggot, kill yourself for being this fucking stupid and inept; you're just making baseless PLATITUDES about shit you don't even understand historically

Tarkovsky did all of what you said about literature with his films. They are basically like visual poetry.
And they are exactly "pure expressions of the inward mind."

>Homer is constantly interspersing reflections on the men who die in battle, and the family they leave behind, in his compositions, and exciting our compassion by it; how could a film ever accomplish this?
By the use of framing, composition, editing, performances, blocking, use of sound etc?

movies and video toys are both controlled by the jews and are useless to the cause

You are talking to somebody who reads Homer in the original Greek. I am well aware of that. Literature is literature, whether written down in the head or preserved on a page.

Take this single instance from the fifth book of the Iliad, when Diomedes kills two Trojans called Xanthus and Thoön:

"Young Xanthus next, and Thoön felt his rage,
The joy and hope of Phænops' feeble age;
Vast was his wealth, and these the only heirs
Of all his labours, and a life of cares.
Cold death o'ertakes them in their blooming years,
And leaves the father unavailing tears:
To strangers now descends his heapy store,
The race forgotten, and the name no more."

How could we express (especially so concisely) this train of reflections in a film, in the middle of a battle--the tragedy of the passing away of young life, the father's loss of his children, his tears when he learns of their deaths, the destruction of his race and lineage?

Thanks for your kind words.

>How could we express (especially so concisely) this train of reflections in a film, in the middle of a battle--the tragedy of the passing away of young life, the father's loss of his children, his tears when he learns of their deaths, the destruction of his race and lineage?
I say again, by the use of framing, composition, editing, performances, blocking, use of sound etc.
There are a million ways of how to portray that scene in film, it could be 15 seconds or 15 minutes. I am by no means someone who knows how to execute it perfectly and I won't pretend like I know how to properly execute that scene to be on par with the writing, but everything you said (the tragedy of passing away of a young life, the father's loss, the destruction of the lineage) can be represented by extreme close ups, motifs, intercutting specific scenes, change of a theme in the soundtrack, composition of the frame and so on. The possibilities are endless.