>/lit/ is laughing at us again

File: 1336961623429.jpg (49KB, 596x650px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 596x650px

they always are
they even have "itt thread we pretend to be /tv/ patricians" threads where they start listing off movies like pulp fiction, fight club, john wick and kubrick

File: 68747470733a2f2f73332e616d617a6f6e6177732e636f6d2f776174747061642d6d656469612d736572766963652f53746f7279496d6167652f7132677654385755506c696271673d3d2d3333323531343535302e313438356439303562616663633131333438303532393636383130392e6a7067.jpg (122KB, 1280x1237px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1280x1237px

>>87608218
Shit wrong pic

File: 1304691622351.jpg (817KB, 1682x1021px) Image search: [Google]

817KB, 1682x1021px

>>87608264
What's wrong with Kubrick? He told that dumb kike Kirk Douglas the "I am Spartacus" scene was a stupid idea and he thought Hitler was right about almost everything despite being one of (((them))) himself.

Who cares. Books are objectively inferior to television and kinos. /lit/fags are redditors anyway.

>>87608326
His films are widely considered to be the best films ever made, and that triggers /lit/ autists.

WHAT, WHERE? I'll talk to them dont worry love. I'll make sure they never. bother us. again.

>>87608326
He's entry level trash

File: 1484718466436.jpg (71KB, 647x594px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 647x594px

>>87608425
What an awful racket the plebs make when something shiny catches their attention

For /lit/ to laugh, they'd have to be able to enjoy something.
As a visit to their board will show, this is clearly not the case.

>>87608264
Well that does sound like this board desu...

>>87608509
/lit/ is one of the best boards left on this site
provided you understand art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXvAd7COpJY

>>87608218
>Le all Boards are one entity XD
All losers without a social life ITT should kyt

Why do you care?
We are talking shit about our board here more than anyone else literally everyday. Every single meta thread is someone condemning the absolute state of this board that changes from 25 /got/ threads to twitter screenshot surface-level politics.

>>87608264
>pulp fiction, fight club, john wick
How the fuck are those films bad? Holy fuck I thought /lit/ was supposed to be the board with taste.

File: 2017-08-17 18_29_48-$.png (68KB, 212x241px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 212x241px

>/lit/

>>87608645
uhhh sorry sweetie but you do realize what site you're on?

>>87608376
Fuck off, unlike film: reading books actually stimulates your intellect, books give you food for thought, gave you new ideas, in fact books sharpened my mind. Even the mediocre books had good bits in them. I only ditched reading because it consumed more time than the visual media, but in retrospect when I think about it, the time invested in reading was worth it.
I used to quote many interesting quotes and ideas from my readings to my female friends and they were visibly impressed, they asked me how do I know these things. On the contrary, visual media has done no such thing. Infact it has reduced my IQ by couple of points and also reduced my attention span. Even the best of the best movies are not that intellectually stimulating when compared to great books.
Literature is patrician tier taste.

>>87608998
L O S E R

>>87609020
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 books you have to use multiple sentences just to set up the scene and for the viewer to grasp what's happening. Reading linear words 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.

>>87609020
Any dunce can write a book. Making visual media requires much more technical skill and teamwork.

>>87609204
If an art form is so pure that a single individual can create a masterpiece from nothing but their own creativity and mastery, then it is superior to something that requires tons of compromise from making ends meet with massive crews and studio meddling, which do nothing but halt the creative process.

>>87609200
>It actually contains all the other art forms in all the filmmaking elements, from fashion, architecture, design to music, photography, the writing and performances.
If I build a table, then put a copy of the Mona Lisa on top of it, is my carpentry superior to Da Vinci's paintings because it incorporates both? Truth is, cinema fundamentally needs other forms of art to be evocative and emotionally resonant. Those other forms don't need cinema; it's brilliant as it is. Cinema has to use other, superior art forms, as a crutch to simply approach the levels of divinity that those other art forms effortlessly reaches without any support from other art forms.
>while in books you have to use multiple sentences just to set up the scene and for the viewer to grasp what's happening. Reading linear words 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.
I don't even know where to start, this is the most brainlet shit I have ever read.

The fact that Hollywood makes billions churning out a mass of derivative trash every year so the lowest common denominator can stuff their mouths while looking at tits and explosions on a screen tells you all you need to know about film as an artform.

>>87609554
Have you seen how many YA novels are released every year, before being adapted? Books are literally just a method of trying to get into movies.

File: 1500649697215.jpg (64KB, 640x460px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x460px

>Is a /lit/ will never understand why cinematography is important episode.

Cant you imagine being such a plebs?

>>87609625
you do know that the old patrician posting of ">watching film fo the plot" was from /lit/ posters right??

>>87609598
>Books are literally just a method of trying to get into movies.
Books existed for millenia before movies were invented, my dear idiot friend.

The fact that movie directors and screenwriters are so creatively bankrupt they have to go dumpster diving in the trash bin of literature to make their little flicks for the plebs is an indictment of film, not literature.

File: OKKID.jpg (42KB, 431x300px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 431x300px

>>87609701
>YA novels are not a dumpster of creativity

/lit/ has some nice discussions but it is also way too filled with self-referential teenagers and /r9k/ self-loathing fags who ask about books that will make them learn social skills

This board deserves all the hate and humiliation possible and some, for being this shitty
I mean look at this>>87609625
and this (hopefully) bad bait>>87608865
it's pathetic

>>87609436
>If I build a table, then put a copy of the Mona Lisa on top of it, is my carpentry superior to Da Vinci's paintings because it incorporates both?
That's a terrible analogy because in (good) films every filmmaking element supports the main narrative and forms a singular whole. The visuals of a Tarkovsky film itself is great, but when you add the writing, performances, editing, sound design, etc you get something much more.

>>87609701
It's more like being creative doesn't earn them money. There are people who can make creative films, but they don't get paid as much. You can say the same with literature, a lot of best selling books are compete trash.

File: 1501528862193.gif (1MB, 446x344px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 446x344px

>>87608559
>/lit/ is one of the best boards left on this site

LMAO

>>87609554
Saying modern Hollywood represents all of film is like saying JK Rowling, Stephen King and Stefan Molyneux represent all of literature.

>>87608509
>implying this board is different in that regard

>>87609874
We have great memes, that shows our great enjoyment of the medium.

>>87609743
That's exactly what I said, you idiot. Maybe if you read a book every so often, your reading comprehension wouldn't be in the gutter.

/p/ is unironically the only board that is good.

Every other board on this godforsaken site is just /r9k/ + a hobby/interest.

>>87609812
They're not great but most of them generally have a deeper understanding of their medium than /tv/ which only cares about the most recent capeshit.

>>87609898
ha Ha Ha Sneed xD

>>87608425
Entry level ≠ Trash
only kids confuse them, grow up

>>87609812
>mac dereddito meme image
>probably posts on /v/ too
Numale

>>87609200
>With film, you can express your idea in just one single frame through framing and composition, the performance, production design, sound
etc, while in books you have to use multiple sentences just to set up the scene and for the viewer to grasp what's happening. Reading linear words is not efficient and it relies too much on the readers imagination, film is just much more efficient.

Whoa, you have to use MULTIPLE SENTENCES to describe a scene? Yeah, that sure sounds a lot less efficient than finding actors, setting up props, making costumes and shooting it all. Also, what the fuck are "linear words"?

File: 1505074209695.jpg (36KB, 603x101px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 603x101px

>>87609898
>We
you're not "we', /v/

>>87609993
>Yeah, that sure sounds a lot less efficient than finding actors, setting up props, making costumes and shooting it all.
The production has nothing to do with it, I am talking about the end result here. It's much more efficient for the viewer.

>>87610082
>efficient for the viewer.
You mean he doesn't have to think? Yes, movies require nothing but passivity from the audience, a real artform for intellectuals.

>>87609200
This.

A picture is worth 1000 words and films get 24 a second for atleast 90 minutes.

>>87610179
No, meaning that the viewer get's the exact fixed unchangeable artistic expression from the filmmaker, while atleast 50% of a book is formed in every readers imagination which is highly subjective.

>>87610225
>measuring the quality of a work by how efficiently it transmits sensory information
You're astoundigly stupid, aren't you?

File: 1502385106558.jpg (31KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 396x385px

>>87609020
>he autistically quotes while women act amazed so he doesn't feel bad
>he can't quote kinos

>>87608326
>>87608405
>>87608458
>>87608559
>>87608865
>>87609020
>>87609337
>>87609436
>>87609554
>>87609701
>>87609790
>>87609961
>>87609954
>>87610179
>>87610279
t. embryo

>>87610273
>while atleast 50% of a book
What exactly made you arrive at this figure?

> formed in every readers imagination which is highly subjective.
Subjectivity in art, we wouldn't want to have that...

>viewer get's the exact fixed unchangeable artistic expression from the filmmaker
And? Are you making the argument that the less room for interpretation, the better?

>>87610373
>And? Are you making the argument that the less room for interpretation, the better?
No, I'm making the argument that it's better if the end result is that more similar to the artists vision, which all the filmmaking elements help to do.

>>87609654
>Implying they were not the autistic plebs on the blade runner thread earlier.

That thread was an embarrassment.

Of course we have a lot of crossposters so not board is innocent of all the bullshit.

File: the-big-lebowski-movie-poster-1998-1020196337.jpg (49KB, 520x756px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 520x756px

>>87610353
>muh quotes

>>87609939
t. numale

>>87610559
>blade runner
You're a pleb

>>87610009
>Going on /v/
Stay there.

>>87609200
>It actually contains all the other art forms in all the filmmaking elements, from fashion, architecture, design to music, photography, the writing and performances
this is why I think videogames will be the highest form of art when someone creative, mature and intelligent enough gives independent game dev a shot. They incorporate fashion, architecture, design, music, photography, writing, performance, and something film can't really offer: interactivity. It doesn't seem like the industry will mature soon, sadly. Chris Crawford has been talking about this for like 30 years

>>87610551
>better if the end result is that more similar to the artists vision
Are you serious? Dozens to hundreds of people are involved in making a movie, it's constrained by budgetary limits, executive demands, availability of wanted actors, etc. Whereas a book is typically written by one person with complete control over the work.

>>87609790
Go back to your containment board.

File: absolute madman.jpg (355KB, 704x1024px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 704x1024px

>>87608264
haha those belters

>>87610807
>it's constrained by budgetary limits, executive demands, availability of wanted actors, etc
Yet the final product is still closer to the artists vision than the imagination of some random dunce.

>>87609939
/p/ is kinda a shithole though
It's 90% gearfags arguing over brands

>>87610807
>Dozens to hundreds of people are involved in making a movie, it's constrained by budgetary limits, executive demands, availability of wanted actors, etc.
Yes, and they all have to answer to the director and try to to make exactly what he wants. They are all merely tooly which the director should use to get what he wants.
And I'm not saying that the production easy, but in ideal situations the potential is far greater than most other artforms.

>>87610807
>What is animation

>>87610924
Not really. Gearfags are hated pretty much unanimously and multiple gear threads are always deleted.

>>87610801
I'd agree with you, but in videogames the "artist" is the player who chooses how to experience the game, and like I said with films you get a fixed artistic expression that can’t be changed.
And let's face it, most people (players) are sub-intelligent brainlets.

>>87610974
*merely tools

>>87611035
>>>/p/3147355
>>>/p/3148067
>>>/p/3148149
>>>/p/3146842
>>>/p/3148918


I literally checked in case I was mistaken
These were all from the front page
I didn't even bother to check the catalogue

>>87611124
Wow, well I take my word back then. Summer has been rough on /p/ I see.

>/lit/tards absolutely BTFO
Best feeling

>>87610898
No, it's not.

You're vastly overestimating the importance of visual accuracy. Who really cares if the author describes a meadow with a particular picture in his mind and what the reader imagines is different? What's important is that text can convey non-sensory information like thought and emotion which is difficult or impossible to fully translate to film without narration.

Film is entertainment for the proles. I wouldn't expect them to be convinced of this and to start reading, I merely want them to know that they are in fact, inferior and quite stupid.

File: 1451942581494[1].jpg (63KB, 960x886px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 960x886px

>>87611194

>>87611460
Reading is for pseudo-intellectual teenagers who want to stand out.

>>87609939
/p/ is pretentious as fuck. I imagine half the board has green hair.

>>87611353
>Who really cares if the author describes a meadow with a particular picture in his mind and what the reader imagines is different?
Because you heavily rely on the reader to be able to imagine such a meadow and feel the emotion the artist wanted to represent with it.

>What's important is that text can convey non-sensory information like thought and emotion
And film can't do that? Tarkovsky films are basically visual poetry, pure thought and emotion represented through time which would be extemely hard to reproduce in a book form.