Can this be refuted?

>>81935401
Yeah probably

>>81935401
jaws is better than its book though

>>81935401
>Harry potter
>deep
Pick one

>>81935401
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

>>81935762
what the fuck are you even trying to say

>>81935895
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

>>81935401
I don't have my photoshop, so imagine a diferent shaped, small complete iceberg above the sea under "Film"

>>81935762
I'd get the money you spent on that degree back if I were you.

>>81936093
I know it lacks grammar and spelling, ironically I was an honor student. Any retard can get an english degree

File: stanley-kubrick-03.jpg (47KB, 792x612px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 792x612px

Yes.

>>81935552
I don't even like HP but I know for a fact the books are better than those gay ass movies.

>>81936147
and aparentlee; any retard has

>>81935762
American Psycho is much better as a book what the fuck?

>>81936341
did you read what I wrote?

>>81935401
If it represents the metal power needed then yes. Otherwise, a lot of books are no better than blog posts.

>>81935401
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.

>>81935401
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.

>>81935762
>as an english major
With that grammar and that taste, you seem like a middle schooler at best, and a conned man at worst.

>>81936379
>In my opinion often the movie is better than the book like American Psycho

>>81935401
The whole thing's a fucking iceberg you dip.

>>81936379
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.

>>81935401
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.

>>81935401
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.

>>81935401
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

>>81936591
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.

File: 1490225790250.jpg (82KB, 783x590px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 783x590px

>>81936262
>I scrutinise spelling and grammar on 4chan posts

>>81936637
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.

>>81936692
Movies can be much more subtle than any novel can be, and that's the big difference between them both, and their biggest qualities.

>>81935762
>American Psycho
>movie better than book

This is just wrong

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

>>81935401
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?

>>81936901
>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.

>>81935401
>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?>>81935529

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

>>81937075

Wow, you have just qualified for the top 100 most retarded posts of 4chan.

>>81937127

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

>>81936176
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.

>>81937399
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.

>>81936492
>films can do the same in subtle way and with a explanatory cinematography.
give an example.

>>81937405
professional wrestling>

>>81937199
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

>>81935401
They can't fit everything into a film... The book will always be better. Wait never mind. Have you read Dune?

>>81937514
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.

>>81935762
>English major
>doesn't even know how to use commas
I don't believe you

>>81935401
ya for most book adaptations i agree

File: harry potter.jpg (9KB, 140x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 140x250px

>>81936239
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.

>>81935401
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.

>>81938138
>saving the thumbnail
>not posting the entire pasta
Jesus /tv/ you're getting fucking lazy

>>81937885
I gotta take a shit but I want to respond to this.

>>81938339
>no phone to shitpost with

poopcuck

File: your pic.png (201KB, 496x381px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 496x381px

>>81938138

>>81938403
I don't I like mobile 4chan.

>>81935401
120 page script vs 300 page novel? Huh...

>>81937885
I'll have to check out this Keeper of Promises movie, is there anywhere I can find it? Is there an HD release?

>>81935401

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.

>>81936619
>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?

File: ohwelles (2017_01_24 05_08_00 UTC).jpg (89KB, 500x617px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 500x617px

>>81936901
>While commercial movies don't even come close to the depth of an arthouse or a novel.

>>81935401
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.

>>81938810
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.

>>81939146
https://www.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

>>81935401
This pleb book was turned into pure kino.

File: puzo godfather.jpg (41KB, 407x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 407x500px

>>81939338

>>81939146
>>81939205
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.

>>81939553
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

>>81935401
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?

>>81939835
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.

>>81935401

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

A film needs no words.

>>81936692

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.

File: TWBB.webm (3MB, 1280x534px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x534px

>>81935401
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.

>>81937127
>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.

>>81940701
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.

>>81937405

can you imagine a film without music?

music precedes film

>ctrl-f fight club
>0 results
hmmmm

>>81941103
Does 12 Angry Men have music? I honestly don't remember

>>81937885
thanks, film school
where's my coffee? :^)

File: image.png (7KB, 168x168px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 168x168px

>>81939367
>that entire chapter about how a girl's pussy is too loose

File: 1359950229269.jpg (5KB, 212x213px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 212x213px

>>81941812
>that entire chapter about how sonny's giant cock was a perfect fit for it

>>81940660
>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.

>>81940660
>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.

>>81940913

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.

>>81941232

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.

>>81942161
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

>>81942497
>people are actually this retarded

>>81935762
>english major
>can barely even write english

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

>>81935401
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.

>>81943561
The picture is obviously about depth, not quality or quantity

>>81937491

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

>>81940503
>Words are violence, propaganda, words efface reality, cover it up.
what nigga?

File: graph.jpg (831KB, 770x1215px) Image search: [Google]

831KB, 770x1215px

Is there a similar one about /tv/?

>>81943674
>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.

File: stylin while a gamer.jpg (57KB, 416x504px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 416x504px

>>81935762

File: sp.png (169KB, 463x354px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 463x354px

>>81940127
>pass the entire franchise to Disney
>neither book nor film is good anymore
>it makes mad dosh tho

>>81935762
>English Major
>poor grammar and spelling
No.

>>81942497
>books can't show, they have to tell
you have no idea what either of those words mean in this context do you

>>81943729
Huh. I wonder where crossfit goes on that pic?

>>81942548
do you understand the concept of "showing" as opposed to "telling"?

right now do you think i'm showing you anything?

>>81937075
... what? Yes you just won the award of the most mentally disabled poster on 4chan.

>>81943713
All words are metaphors, they substitute for something else.

For example, when you use the word "nigga", the word is actually hiding the real person you're applying it to, acting as a standin. So words cover up reality, they violently insist on themselves.

The words I type enter your brain like a virus, and take your attention away from anything else.

And since words don't have to refer to anything real, whole belief systems can be constructed that have no relation to reality, allowing delusions to exist.

With no words there can be no delusions. You may see something and think it's something else, but it's only your strong belief that it's something else, that other "word" that allows delusion to continue.

>>81943808
>yeah, so that brain-fart of yours aside
Are you a retard? The picture is about depth. Depth is just an element of quality, so it would be retarded to assume the picture is talking about quality in general.

>The ice below the surface is not better, "richer", or more meaningful. There's just MORE OF IT.
You miss the point. The picture is saying that both film and lit have depth, but film is surface level compared to lit. This distinction has nothing to do with amount of content. The arguments made for literature having more depth are that they are more tightly controlled (single author) and that the medium is more exact at explaining psychology.

Anyway, what you're saying STILL misses the overall point because your argument implies there's some magical film length where a film has the same content as a book. Unless this literally is what you mean to say.

>>81944019
Protip: Through the text you just typed, you "Told" us your opinion on the ability of text to show vs tell things, and in doing so, you "Showed" us that you do not understand the underlying concept.

I understand what you're saying, like, "Words are not pictures", but that's not what "Showing" means here.

>>81944019
I'm not your fucking freshman english teacher, go google the term.

Not giving you any more (You)s.

>>81943897

if writing is vague, a reader can fill in their own meaning. but that's not showing, that's lack of telling.

a writer can relay how a person is feeling without explicitly saying and describing every thought, but again, that's not showing, that's limited telling, that's picking what to tell.

a writer can use subcommunications and implications to communicate, but again, that's not showing, that's relying on expectations conjured by language, telling.

>>81944144
>Depth is just an element of quality
And my exact words, which you took issue with, were: "The picture implies a difference in quality"
Now shut the fuck up.

>You miss the point. The picture is saying
No, you miss the point. Specifically the part where I said that I was aware of the intended meaning of the picture and then described a literal meaning that worked better.

Use that brain that god gave you and stop being fucking obtuse.

>>81944165
so an author only has the ability to "show" readers they don't understand something?

subcommunication and implications are still not "showing." the fact that you pick something up is not "showing."

are you maybe confusing "showing" with the concept of transmitting understanding?

>>81944168
i know you won't be replying because you can't even articulate your argument because you have no argument

here's a tip. telling less is not the same as showing.

>>81944296
>the fact that you pick something up is not "showing."
That's exactly what it is in this context. If it were in a movie, you would call it "The Language of Film", which refers to subtext, NOT shit that's blatantly thrust in front of your eyes.

>>81944276

Wow, it's almost as if still pictures without context can have different interpretations.

The person who made the picture probably wanted to intend the meaning that people who read literature are "deep" (like they are) and that people who prefer films are "shallow." It's really just an exercise in ego-stroking pretentiousness. Probably came from /lit/.

Films highest achievements are getting praised by kike media and having 600million dollar production.

For example, a book from the 19th century caused multiple civil wars and created a fuckinflg superpower nation.

Besides films are so limitrd by.money and lowest common denominator that it truly is the lowest artform

>>81944342
subtext in written language is still not showing, it's like silence in music.

and subtext doesn't rely on showing, it relies on a lot of previous exposure to telling and situations so that someone has formed associations and linkages.

even with subtext, a book does not show. it must tell to build a show.

>>81944493
Nah, nigga. You're just showing off your ignorance at this point.

God forbid you listen when multiple people are telling you you're full of shit, but hey, you go ahead and be stupid.

>>81936901
>Arthouse films can be more difficult to digest than most novels.

Some pedantic and pretentious drivel and asinine attempts to be "deep" are not that hard to digest.

>>81944533
text doesn't show, it tells.

shorter text doesn't show either, it tells.

subtext doesn't show either, it implies. which is not showing.

showing and implications are opposites.

>>81943910
Very clearly the top.

>>81941232
I believe it did have music, but it was only scene transitioning music that kinda ruined what could have been a silent and very good moment. Instead of seeing the teenager accused of murder try to hold back from having a breakdown while classic soft scene transition music plays, silence or ambient noise could have made the scene darker and more real.

There's a lot of scenes that benifit from music and a lot of scenes where silence is actually better.

>>81944228
I don't think you get it, let me use an example.
If a writer wants to convey to the audience that 2 people are best friends, they can literally write "they were best friends", or they can describe an interaction between them that indicates they're best friends. That's what 'show vs tell' means here.

>>81944579
I was already nice enough to explain why you're wrong. Restating your misunderstanding doesn't change anything.

>>81944559
>Films I fail to understand aren't deep
>books with strings of BIG words are
See, I can be reductionist too.

File: 2.JPG.jpg (15KB, 604x348px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 604x348px

>>81944648
>He lowers his eyes as classical, soft transition music plays

Or

>He lowers his eyes as the ambient noise of the court room goes quiet.

>>81944698

i understand that "show" can be used metaphorically, as in demonstrate or impart, but the second case is still telling.

telling less is not the same as showing.

you may be thinking of the difference between explicit and implicit, but telling explicitly is not showing, it's telling, and telling implicitly is still tellling.

>>81944806
What I described is exactly what everyone means when they say "show vs tell" in the context of book-writing.

if one reads and watches extensively only the meaningful parts will remain. If particular film contains more of such, then, if substance reps. size, yes it can be refuted.

>>81944716
subtext is not showing, it's telling implicitly. implications are not showing.

and the fact that text cannot show is why misunderstandings and misinterpretations of text happen in the first place. you can only rely on what's been said, and if something is implied, that depends on certain expectations and predictions by the reader. again, not showing. an absence of telling is not showing.

>>81944905
Nigger, I don't care what you want to call it, in parlance of literary and film critique, this is what "Show vs Tell" means, and we're not going to all change what we say because of your stubborn, stupid ass.

>>81944843
tell less is not showing.

explicit is not the same as show, implicit is not the same as tell.

>>81944940
if you're going to insist that text can show, i'll have to keep insisting that no it can't. it can only tell. from my brain to your brain.

text can tell a lot, it can tell explicitly, it can tell a little, it can tell implicitly. but implying something is not showing. telling less is not showing. telling in another way is not showing. it's all just telling.

unlike film.

>>81944276
Listen bro your argument might be sound but you said some shit in your first post that mislead me into thinking you were an idiot. Like equating quality with depth when depth is just an element of quality. Or implying that TV shows ever have any depth. Also you're sort of undermining the conversation by just saying that both mediums have identical potential. But I guess that's fine because that's just a different conversation.

File: 1490469031535.jpg (9KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 226x223px

>>81945033
>>if you're going to insist that text can show, i'll have to keep insisting that no it can't.
Basic linguistics already considers words, text and language games as pictures.

>>81944905
Oh because you can't misunderstand the context of a video? Reason why "misunderstandings" and "misinterpretations" (cool spooks) happen is because of inaccuracies.

>>81944559
This.

File: SILENCE_6sheet-485x752.jpg (54KB, 485x752px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 485x752px

>>81941103

File: apu sad.png (187KB, 758x631px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 758x631px

But books R boring

This board is absolutely horrible