Why would anyone read fiction when the entirety of cinema is available to explore?

Remember when he described an Eisenstein film at length? How he wishes he could spend time with cinema instead of wasting it with literary fiction. Poor Don.

Attached: delillo_NYT_1998.jpg (259x400, 64K)

Oh my! Hello James! Another dear friend and admirer of the cinema. If only you were born a few decades later, the restrictions of the written word wouldn't cause you so much frustration. Poor James.

Attached: jamesjoyce_bereniceabbott.jpg (768x995, 157K)

video is not cinema

Attached: quentin-tarantino.jpg (2048x1536, 209K)

Ok cryptkeeper wannabe nigger.

There hasn't been any film that's better than the book.

this
stop reading

>the entirety of cinema is available to explore
It's not. I cannot find Don Askarian's "Komitas" (1988) anywhere.

Hahahahaha

Attached: 14885998686_eb73079684_m.jpg (240x240, 30K)

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Attached: 131410.jpg (653x1000, 126K)

Cinema can't top this

Attached: 064E3EF9-3B07-4E14-A458-A0B707CDE192.jpg (260x392, 23K)

We're just talking about fiction here. Keep up retard.

I unironically just don’t like it. I read with my heart, not with my brain, and books seem to affect me more than cinema.

Much respect. Our lives and our mediums can coexist. When the cinema wins I will build libraries for you and your kin.

Why would anyone watch films when video games exist?

Video games are fucking awful.

t. boomer

video games are the most degenerate and worthless artistic medium, along with anime.

Because I like reading

Satantango is a way better film than book.

I have absolutely no idea where you're supposed to start with cinema and what is good vs bad film
Literature I see very clear progressions, movements, groups, authors referencing prior work and building off of it, I'm acquainted enough with all of this to pick up a book and tell you where it belongs and who influenced it and who it influenced in turn
I'm sure that progression is there in film but I have no idea how to start piecing it together

>reading fiction

Attached: fiction virgin chad.png (2439x1084, 720K)

>tfw too lazy to play video games

start with Eriksson! he celebrates autism WITHOUT prettifying it
youtube.com/watch?v=uKUChOwam_M

Start with the gents

Attached: 20190903_172332.jpg (720x592, 343K)

I don't fucking know who those people are

Is Satantango the Ulysses or GR or whatever of cinema? I can't think of any other film that famous that's more of a norman-repellent

On a superficial level, sure. That, Shoah, Out 1, Evolution of a Fillipino Family, Napoleon, and the uncut Greed if that ever gets found.

some movies are good, but the number of movies is a tiny fraction of the number of books. it costs millions and millions to make movies. most books and stories will never be made into movies, even the ones that get optioned.

both are virgins with such shit taste

I like both. Fuck off.

But it's not just that it's long

Length and superficial "difficulty" are all Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow have in common.

All fiction is on "facts" as proposed by the author, but those very "facts" could be misunderstandings and misinterpretations. What makes it then any different from fiction, the content of which may or may not be descriptive of reality?

Attached: 1512357167057.jpg (569x604, 270K)

All non-fiction*

Please read a book.

But should it be nonfiction or fiction?

Can someone post a great book that couldn't be made into a better film?

>Quentin Tarantino not Stanley Kubrick

Ulysses, The Sound and the Fury, The Divine Comedy, Don Quixote, War and Peace, Gravity's Rainbow. Literally every great book ever. Even Kubrick said that great books don't necessarily make for good movies and he paid the price for breaking his own rule with Lolita (which is infinitely inferior to the novel).

Kubrick is a hack. Most of those books are shit. Anything could be made in a film with the right director.

>War and peace 1966

>Literature I see very clear progressions, movements, groups, authors referencing prior work and building off of it, I'm acquainted enough with all of this to pick up a book and tell you where it belongs and who influenced it and who it influenced in turn
And how exactly does this increase your pleasure in reading? It doesn't, unless you're reading for reasons that are dumb as fuck. But, like with literature, you can literally just take a book on film history and read it and there you have that overview, it's nothing special.

Any. Literal adaptations are barely watchable, and less literal ones are simply a separate work of art that doesn't care about being an adaptation anymore but being a good work of art by the standards of its art form.

>Any. Literal adaptations are barely watchable, and less literal ones are simply a separate work of art that doesn't care about being an adaptation anymore but being a good work of art by the standards of its art form.
I watched Kubrick once that means I know what I'm talking about.

nope, i've seen the films and read the books
books are way way more deep

>Why do you derive enjoyment from the significance of art? Lol it's all the same dude if you actually care about any of it you're just a pseud

i think videogames are the best medium for illustrating war.

To be fair, Yea Forums is an anime board dummy

Vidya is the least decadent medium because you at least have to git gud and be alert which implies more cognitive activity than 99% of movies and most literature too.

Yea Forums is a site, not a board.

LOOK MA! I'M A PEDANTIC SOPHIST IN CYBERSPACE!

Unless AI comes up with a way to extract images directly from our brain into film, cinema will always be limited by the massive need of money to produce anything worthwhile.
Sure you can make some character studies with handy camera and a few lads but if your artistic vision entails something more exotic you need funding on a big scale.
Also it will never be the undiluted vision of one man.
Not saying that film is bad though. It's pretty amazing when all things come together.