Is film superior to literature?
What are the pros and cons of each? Which medium gives a broader way to send a message?
Is film superior to literature?
Eli Hill
Brody Thomas
Not to me
also
>reading for a 'message'
kek
Back to /tv/, /r9k/, or whatever shithole you came from
Camden Gonzalez
FILM:
Pros: Pictures. Cons: No words.
LITERATURE:
Pros: Words. Cons: No pictures.
Obviously books can contain more information and therefore convey more meaning, but well-done cinema and television can greatly play with emotion. I *always* look towards film/tv (when it isn't just time-wasting fun) as an art-form; something that lends itself greatly to creativity and surrealism.
With books, I look towards understanding the author's intended message, what ideas they put forth and how they choose to express them.
With both, I enjoy a good story.
Caleb Walker
Literature is words and words are kind of like math so obviously literature is better.
Joseph Moore
The language of cinema is more transcendental than that of words and is not bound by linguist barriers
For that reason, purely as a means of artistic communication, cinema at its highest, is greater than literature and most other art forms
Second only to music, also at its highest
Mason White
Film is a more proletarian medium and as such is easier to sending a message to a wider audience.
Lucas Thomas
>author's intended message
Disgusting
Tyler Scott
>Cons: No pictures.
How shit is your imagination?
Anthony Campbell
I don't think that you can say one art medium is superior to another. My personal favorite is film but I trying to say that Tarkovsky is better than Proust is like saying Chopin is better than Dali. It's silly.
Aaron Allen
Dali really isn't a great artist though. Chopin is far superior