Who´s right and wrong here?

Filmfags rattle off their theory but can't name one film that's as great as the greatest literature.

>what's the fucking point
To figure out which artistic medium is best

Film is fucking lame.

Intolerance

Triumph of the Will

The second guy is a pleb.
>1. Books are long hurr
>2. Books don't have perty pictures in dem
>3. Muh movies are flashy

>implying conveying more information in a shorter space of time is inherently a good thing
>impying moves are able to do that sort of thing

Movies are constrained by the need to tell a certain story inside some rules of pace and composition. Even you were able to effectively convey more information in a shorter space of time you would need to do it at a certain pace in order to make it digestible by the audience. Because there's just a certain amount of information that can be understood despite which means you're using.

While books are also constrained by those rules, is it clear that they can play with the pace more freely than movies or TV series. It's not uncommon to convey a variety of stories in a single book in order to tell a much bigger story or make a philosophical point about the subject of interest of the author. While books dance gracefully (as long as the author has the ability to do so) through various archs and characters, movies struggle to keep up with more than two or three of them because of how the sense of pace is completely ruined if you don't transition properly from one story to the other.

runescape must be the pinnacle of artistry

Film production is exceedingly more complex, it's true.
But it is also hampered by limitations (such a time, budget, investors) and has many more moving parts (writer(s), a director, actors, cinematographer, editor, sound production, etc).

A book's complexity comes from minimal compromise (typically only a writer and editor), and lacking in artistic handicaps such as a budget, producers, time constraints, etc. This leads the medium to be much more artistically meritable and complex.

hmm... batman vs superman was a multi-million dollar production and involved hundreds of people, whereas the divine comedy was just dante writing some sentences on paper... i guess the former is a more complex work with greater artistic merit!!

Mirror
Apocalypse Now
Tokyo Story
Joan of Arc
Vertigo
Au Hasard Balthazar
Persona
L'Aventura

But the comparison is unfair. Films have only been around in it's current form since the 1910/20s. And their artistic quality is much more restricted by social/economic factors not directly related to the actual work or artist. It could of course have developed in a different direction, but from the 30s onwards films artistic potential have been restricted by the overarching goal of making money out of them, more so than literature.

i rly want to say its the second guy, since the first one is an obnoxious pseud
but i cant :(

Books are hampered by limitations as well. Limitations, however, are really more a testament to the complexity if anything. There being moving parts doesn't really make it less artistically meritable.

La Divina Commedia is incredibly complex. That doesn't mean movies aren't more complex in general.

as we all know, sensory stimulation equals artistic quality

the fact that books can't communicate in a direct sensory manner and therefore contain less information is a serious problem... i would go so far as to say that watching the news is more of an artistic experience than reading homer because there are more moving pictures and noises

I hope you're joking.

That was obvious sarcasm

It's hard to tell sometimes, people were being almost as retarded as you earlier in the thread.

they were also being sarcastic

>being this autistic

i mean, a little bit

>Look at the production of an art form to measure its complexity.

That would completely omit television from competing with novelization then since all narrative complexity is generally removed by producers and marketing consultants.

Jeez user I only skimmed the thread you don't have to be rude.

i don't think the argument is that artistic mediums with visual components are better, just that they're more complex.
i interpret complexity in this case to mean the types of artistic mediums used: for example, film uses writing (screenplays), music (soundtrack), art (pictures), and movement. books only use one of those.

ITT: Retards
Film and Literature are literally the same shit. They both tell stories and that is their main purpose, just showing you it in a different way

>main purpose

I'm pretty sure their main purpose of film is box office or circulation so the involved parties can continue whatever it is they are doing. Art almost always takes a back seat to those two items, even film students have to make compromises.

yeah that totally doesn’t happen in literature

its not worth responding if you don't immediately see how bankrupt this idea is you're a fucking lazy thinker. I'm not going to say brainlet because the people who have a problem with this who aren't so dumb as to be basically non-sapient are just being contrarians. You all know you're wrong and know that books are the height of all storytelling and will never be surpassed so long as Bards and Poets are extinct, and they are never coming back.

>Discounting the written word this badly
Let me guess, you're relatively new to reading and have never studied a book closely?

>storytelling
Bourgeoisie, please leave my board

media is not for your fucking cultural engineering you evil fucking sociopath. you're as bad as nazis, fuck off back to /leftypol/ btw your board is filled with mentally ill people, unironic pedophiles, nazbols who are blatantly nazis from twitter (you dumb fucking niggers) and tankies who are actual violent sociopaths who absolutely would hurt innocent people. fuck you

Neither makes a very good argument, but the first guy is right. The pro-movie guy has obviously never read a decent book; many, many decent books are just unfilmable (how would you make a movie out of Notes from Underground, let alone something by Plato or Kant?). The pro-movie guy's defense of movies also makes me suspect that he is ignorant not only of the capabilities of a book but also of movies.
And the point that "movies are better because shorter" strikes me as a non-sequitur.

Please leave my board, uneducated cretin. This is a space for those of culture and refinement. Your anger is blue collar and pathetic.

you are alright

Not nearly as frequently. No. This is evidenced by the broad array of subjects and prose literature offers.

>Please leave my board, uneducated cretin
Lol did I hurt your feelings you arm-chair marxist sociopath? Did it bother you that my insults go right where they belong because I know more about your little gay online subcultures than most /pol/yps who amble in here do? Are you alarmed?
>uneducated cretin
I'm neither a cretin nor uneducated and I wouldn't want to brag about being respectable or a member of the literati elite since I'm not an evil fucking academic marxist swine.
>This is a space for those of culture and refinement
you all have horrible taste, your writing is pathetic, and none of you have refined anything worth mentioning besides fetishes for boyish looking girls, closeted homosexuality, pathetic groveling at the feet of dead Semitic gods and your gay fucking self-deprecating humor you maintain. This board is garbage and I spit on you for championing it or trying to claim it, faggot.
>your anger is blue collar
classic classist faggot scum, would absolutely deserve the wall
>pathetic
on the contrary my rage is beautiful and has more power than you'll ever glean from your little worm eaten tomes you pathetic mental midget

Chill it, dude; working class intellectuals are usually the best because they have to work harder for it.

A lot of people have this idea that the mediums that require more and more stuff are inherently superior, but it's actually the opposite. The more kinds of art one medium has to balance the less it can effectively use them. Comics are a good example, if a comic had Shakespeare's writing and Rembrandt's art, it wouldn't make for a good comic. A comic using both effectively needs to be dynamic and have the art and language simplified enough for one to cleanly glide to the other as you read it. Unfortunately, comics, films and especially videogames have so many things they have to consolidate that they can never branch out to the artistic lengths of literature, painting, sculpting, music or so on. I'd say silent film is the one that went the furthest artistically.