Do films have better stories than literature?

I'm not sure if I understand your question but some movies convey ideas previously written in a book in a better way, yes. Classical example would be Patrick Sunkind's Perfume. What a fucking bore that book was in french.

But usually books do it better because of no time constraints and your imagination doing some serious work

>>9608993
The movie too was a fucking bore (though I experienced a green text series of events the night I saw it) excluding the cinematography.

File: Tokyo_Story_poster.jpg (34KB, 300x430px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 300x430px

>>9608935

There will always be a place for novels, short stories, and poetry.

However, films have completely supplanted theater. Nobody today can experience Shakespeare's plays the way they were meant to upon release. Actors in theater come and go, and are ultimately completely forgotten after their death.

In film, everything about the film is immortalized for future generations the way that prose and poetry are. The directing, cinematography, acting, and everything else that goes into a film will be experienced exactly the way the artist(s) intended until the end of time. Film is therefore a superior art form to theater.

>>9608935
Films are too short

>>9610511
Theater is a completely different experience than film and neither are simply story delivery systems.

>>9610537
Imagine a theater entirely performed by holograms. What would you call that?

>>9610544
A hologram can't perform in that sense.
Performance implies autonomy. Hence why one might get a thrill from the theater simply because it is of flesh and blood and bone.

File: 1363342346244.jpg (209KB, 682x600px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 682x600px

He thinks literature and film are about "story"

>>9610511
Except that we do remember actors from past ages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Burbage, for example.
Nobody ever saw a production of a Shakespeare play as "it was intended" because Shakespeare only really intended the text. The text is the core of a dramatic work and a performance is its ephemeral manifestation that can by definition vary because of the director's and actors' interpretations. Just because one layer of theater isn't fixed doesn't impair the medium.
Finally, the most stupid claim in your post is the implication that the purpose of art is being eternal. No, sorry, nobody watches silent movies with live orchestras playing along, as it was intended. No, through the centuries the older movies will become more culturally foreign to people and they will never experience them as intended, just like you wouldn't understand a production of Hamlet from the 17th century, with no female actors, a bizarre archaic language and pronunciation and references that will go over your head.