Do you consider screenplays as literature? Why or why not?

>>9120045
NO. FUCK OFF. LITERATURE REFERS TO NOVELS. FUCKING NOVELS. THAT'S IT.

I read screenplays for a living and you would not believe the amounts of garbage we receive, even from generally trustworthy agents and managers. On the other hand, even fantastic scripts have a strange cadence to them that only works on screen. So no, I don't. Although I would like to.

>>9120055
Yeah dude Shakespeare isn't literature :^)

>>9120074
haha shiiet

Being as they're not literature, obviously I don't.

>>9120055
>>9120056
>>9120090

What about the third reply? I think he´s right, why are Shakespeare plays (and plays in general) considered as literature, while screenplays aren´t? Maybe there would be the argument that >>9120056
wrote, "scripts have a strange cadence to them that only works on screen", do novels have elements that would work on a play, I don´t thing so, still, is considred literature

I was thinking of something related to the connection between movies and books that I'd like to bring up.

People always talk about film adaptations of books but we know that most movies get a novelization too. I've never bothered with them before but I was wondering if any of you know of a novelization that is generally or personally considered better than the film it's based off of.

>>9120109
I don't know why you are so interested in the semantics of it. Why bother making sure everything can be classified like this?

>>9120045
Most screenplays couldn't really be thought of literature but the example in your pic is pretty good. Maybe that could be an exception.

>>9120147
Apparently the novelization of Alien is supposed to be pretty good, but I have a general disdain of novelizations.

Well put it this way, why read the script when you can watch the movie. Goddamn roach

>>9120109

Shakespearean plays are stripped of any definitive performative manifestation, unlike films. Yes, his plays are performed but they’re performed by everyone from your high school’s theatre department to Broadway. Shakespeare is primarily READ.

The English novel wasn’t a thing in Shakespearean times. Shakespeare is as close as it gets, historically speaking.

The stage is broadly understood as a writer’s medium. Film is a director’s medium and it is rare a director will write his/her own screenplay (obvious exceptions exempt) so the literary credit becomes muddled.

etc.

>>9120045
No. But birdman is kino.

>>9120615
It´s like saying "why read Romeo and Juliet when you can watch the play?", makes no sense to me

>>9120585
Why is this? Just curious as to your reasoning. I feel the same way.

>>9122008
The thing with that is that, film is a very relative young art, we have only like 130 years of film history, while theater plays have a very longer existance, that´s why I think that screenplays haven´t be officially accepted as literature (yet). Regarding the "performed" thing, as far as I know, Shakespeare wrote plays for (like the name stablishes) being played, but that doesn´t stop people from reading their scripts and considering them a literature.

Regarding the "is rare a director will write his/her own screenplay", the exceptions are bigger than you may thing, as far as I know, a big percentage of director´s debut film had a screenplay made by the director, when the director starts having fame there´s a big probability that he stops writing, still, he or she may return after years; and the literary credit that the screenwriter unfortunately doesn´t have to general public is, in my speculation, a matter of the time this art form has, again, it´s a young art, if a Shakespeare play is performed, and the perfomance is directed by, let´s put a random name, Johnny McGregor, who´s the owner of the story, or, who gets the credit for it? Shakespeare, but, with film, if a screenwriter writes a good screenplay, and is performed, and, is directed by a recognized director, who gets the credit of the story? The director; it´s a matter of ignorance in my opinion, maybe in the future people would recognize screenplays as literature, like many screenwriters think.

>>9122055
This is a problem I'll always have with performance: They've always got some form of directorial spin on them, and more often than not it distorts a writer's own vision for the play. On the other hand, it's interesting to see what other people took from the text, however this always ends up moulding my OWN interpretation of the play, which is pretty infuriating when I come back to a play.

>>9122102
Same happens with screenplays, a film has, like the play, a directorial spin, and a more noticeable one (since the name of the director is more recognized), still, scripts (plays) are recognized as literature

>>9120585
Thanks for the suggestion. I don't like novelizations either but I like finding exceptions to the rules.

>>9120074
lolmao! goteem haha

>>9122008
wrong though. television is the writer's medium. stage is the actor's

>>9122092
For me it has to do with: why do you want to see a movie translated to the page? A movie is meant to be seen. It's a visual medium. And while yeah, a novelization may fill in the blanks and flesh out things, but it's still going to mimic the way the movie plays out, which is boring as fuck to read. Do you really want to read some low-effort writing about an action scene?