What makes movies such an inferior medium compared to literature?

i don’t think it’s inferior, just that poor quality movies are popular, just as shitty westerns used to be popular, or romance novels, etc
it is a medium that can be rich, deep, complex, impactful; but often won’t
>marketable experience
this is the problem, yes? the medium of film requires money to pay actors, and then must earn money to break even.
this is a great answer

it's pretty good at communicating visual information you fucking numbskull

It's because it is targeted to the masses, so it has to make itself appealing to the lowest common denominator.

>What makes painting/music such an inferior medium compared to literature?

see now how dumb it becomes. movies have been around for 120 years whereas we trace back literature written 4000 years ago, so yeah, its not as riche and diverse, but not for intrinsic reasons.

Movies from the 60s-90s are better than literature from the 60s-90s. modern directors all suck though

film buffs are usually annoying pretentious little shits

Modern writers suck more than modern directors.

The Lighthouse felt like it was adapted from some great Stephen King novel, but it had some qualities I can only see working on a film.

Please name your “true kino” movies.

They aren't inferior, just different. There are also a lot of really shitty movies that get popular, you gotta dig a little to get to the good stuff.

Especially French New Wave faggots.

Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't mistake me, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

Attached: 1584697992661.jpg (747x747, 30.31K)

Hollywood

Like I said, the ones in the book. Primarily Tarkovsky, Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer, Kiarostami, etc., I'm not saying these are the greatest directors to ever exist, I'm sure there are other people who are more avant-garde and clever but these illustrate the possibilities that film offers as opposed to literature. I have Tarkovsky's book although I haven't read it yet, but I'm pretty confident that it would answer all your questions on the subject.

>great stephen king novel
only way “great” should apply to stephen king is in respect to size

I'm not an elitist, so a book with intriguing plot makes me feel content. Don't care whether it's on Harold Blooms reading list or not.

I see it as a lack of an interior anything. Film is purely an exterior medium that by definition lacks subtlety—a cinematic montage is no replacement for a metaphor, and a voiced interior monologue or narration in film a poor substitute in every occasion. I have always seen it as basically an extension of theatre, as when a novel was adapted to the theatre in the 1800s its purpose was to commodify it and simplify it so that the lowest common denominator could understand it and therefore sell tickets, as is the fate of 99% of adaptations from literature, a practice that continues with film well into today

Hollywood, Jews.

Also, when I read a book, I tend to take pauses sporadically. Sometimes a sentence or a line of reasoning may catch my interest and lead me down my own line of reasoning which I explore for a time until I return to the book. For whatever reason, movies do not tend to provoke deep thought in me. To me, this is why books are superior medium.

I haven't encountered these guys in ages. It's all about muh tarkovsky nowadays. I liked Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev but Stalker made me want to commit suicide due to how boring it was and I couldn't finish it.

It's one of those things where I've literally never met an exception. Something about deciding to study film seems to appeal solely to some of the most annoying people on the planet

Videogames simply aren't art. You're just addicted

anything by kubrick post-lolita, by far the best film maker of all time

Attached: 1595919745148.png (804x743, 21.75K)

ive only ever played some single player games that interested me.
Kojima games, demons souls, N64 mario and zelda games are good art

and hideki kamiya games are like good dance music

Perspective is also lacking. From the straightforward 1st person recall of R. H. Dana to Henry James's way of weaving, into a single narrative thread, sometimes in single long sentences, perspectives of multiple persons, literature will always have a certain intimacy that isn't possible via film. There's also the synergy that authorial autonomy and imaginative license have: It's possible to get away with almost anything in writing, as in Faust pt. II or The Time Machine, so the former isn't going to make it to film with palpable fidelity to its source no matter what the budget, while the latter couldn't have been invented by someone already steeped in film's comparatively safe, and self-censorious, conventions. Film also, by supplying so much verisimilitude to the eyes and ears, inhibits the audience's imagination in other sense modes, as that of readers are not: You really don't imagine the smell or the stinging cold or whatever, and that's what makes moving pictures numbing in their way, and the meme what it is. Cinematic detachment has its place, but it's closer to the museum than to the life of its visitors.

Crazy how theres so many posts and so few of them are true

any russians know good tolstoys prose is?

movies arent intrinsically inferior but
1books have a lot of centuries of development; movies less than two centuries, if we consider the horse in motion the first movie
2the entertaiment of the present is "the more things per second, the better; the more eye-catching, the better; the more socially inclusive, the better", so the movies made in the present are shit

that being said, there are a lot of good movies out there, the most of them made in the past century. But, for that discussion, go to Yea Forums

also, each medium has its pros and his cons, pe
- movies can easily inmerse you in themselves
- movies have to be watched in one sitting
- books have less elements, only words
- etc.
i dont say which are cons and which pros because it depends on which objective or intention you have when making a film or writing a book

Tarkovsky’s films are honestly soulless, and I feel that way about most Soviet cinema.

I really do not think there will be fundamental developments in film structure or depth in the future. The written word just allows for a depth and breadth of information conveyance that film does not because it is inherently limited by it being a visual medium that is constrained by time and budget. Film is a medium based on feeling not intellectual depth. Not saying that's bad.

What makes you say they're soulless? A lot of Russian art springs out of deep existential despair which I can appreciate

It is like that most of the time. But there are also people like Tarkovsky and Bresson

your personal preferences

A writer has full creative control on every word of his book. A filmmaker vision can be severely limited by the budget, the actors, his film crew, etc.
Btw i disagree with your idea that book>movie. Comparing different medium doesn't make any sense.

Yet you gave 0 specific reasons for why film is a more limited medium in itself. Couldn't cinematography achieve everything that a painting can, plus the dimension of time (narrative)?

the essence of your post is simply "modern thing suck, old thing good". The culture around high art is just a circlejerk.

You might want to watch better movies

Nah. One of the draws of art is being engaged in the experience, and videogames excel at crafting experiences that can be compelling and engaging. Getting lost in a good game can be like getting lost in a good book. I'm sure there's something that can even be said about the potential beauty of game design specifically but I'm speaking more generally of the overall human-crafted experience.

Literature in one form or another is the original way humans tell stories and is thus the most perfected. Movies are a fairly young medium and thus screenwriters and directors haven´t perfected writing stories for this specific medium of storytelling.

They lack warmth and humanity, to keep it brief.

>Couldn't cinematography achieve everything that a painting can,
You are too retarded to help.

It is interesting to note how many of the greatest films of all time are adaptations of books that would be considered mediocre. The Godfather, 2001, Jaws, etc. Cinema is not a bad medium at all but it has much less range than literature since there are so many factors that contribute to the success of a film whereas literature is one singular artist and vision.

the fact that overall theres less good movies than good books has nothing to do with movies being worse than books. Every one in this thread is creating reasons as to why its worse that aren't really true.
simple case of correlation not being equivalent to causation

Both of these movies came out last year by the same director and are very much influenced by literature. Drive My Car is an adaptation of a Murakami short story and features the characters acting out Waiting for Godot and Uncle Vanya. Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy is an anthology film and the 2nd story has the character read an erotic novel out loud to seduce the professor who wrote it. Both of these movies are very layered and the dialogue is rich. Right now, cinema is a better artistic medium than literature. Most books today are irrelevant and shit. Most movies are too but occasionally you get some really smart ones like these 2

Attached: Wheel-of-Fortune-And-Fantasy-and-Drive-My-Car.jpg (720x393, 115.88K)

>Kojima games, demons souls, N64 mario and zelda games are good art
Reminder, this is the sort of person telling you video games should be taken as seriously as a medium that produced works such as The Divine Comedy or Macbeth,

>and videogames excel at crafting experiences that can be compelling and engaging.
Refuted by video games being boring skinner boxes.

screenshot where I said that. I specifically made the claim that videogames were worse then literature. But it's pure pseudery to not realize that the potential of the medium is at least as high. This thread is like judging literature based only on the poetry of Mesopotamia and gilgamesh and making up vague bullshit claims about what literature can and can't be.

As for my specific picks, I don't like any of them as much as a good shakespeare play, however they're clearly compellingly crafted works of 3d computer generated architecture, and theyre structure works in an intelligent and intuitive way, with a unity not dissimilar to Good Art.

Movies were silent for decades and so were just filmed mime and never really went beyond that. Dialogues stayed trivial and accessory.

This is like saying painting is inferior compared to literature.
It's not. It's just different. To the normal man it's definitely far more accessible.

What's he wearing, looks comfy?

Video Games, especially the ones you listed, are directly responsible for the feminization of young men. Read Ellul.