Is film superior to literature?

Is film superior to literature?

What are the pros and cons of each? Which medium gives a broader way to send a message?

Not to me

also
>reading for a 'message'
kek

Back to /tv/, /r9k/, or whatever shithole you came from

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.

Literature is words and words are kind of like math so obviously literature is better.

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

Film is a more proletarian medium and as such is easier to sending a message to a wider audience.

>author's intended message

Disgusting

>Cons: No pictures.

How shit is your imagination?

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.

Dali really isn't a great artist though. Chopin is far superior

Silent films might be able to compete.

im a complete pleb when it comes to film, where do I begin?

Pan's Labyrinth is my favorite so far

I can't watch a movie without thinking of the fact that the script writer's original vision has been passed through the filter of, and slightly distorted by, actors, directors, sound people, production people, and board rooms full of people in suits.

I hate hipsters and pseuds but with film, the more obscure stuff really is better. It mostly has to do with the rules of financing. So look for arthouse or foreign cinema (while avoiding the stuff that is just tranny porn under the guise of art).

Personally I think Koreans are out of this world when it comes to the formalities and storytelling, Russians are great at really showing things from a completely different angle, German arthouse and silent movies from before the 70s are great, and so on. Fantasy is unfortunately usually more commercial, just due to budgets. If you liked Pan's, you could like Cronos too. A lot of great modern people like Lanthimos, too. And so on, there are good movie lists out there.

anyone else feel vidya has the potential for depth beyond all other mediums but is incredibly poorly understood still and under utilized?

I mean, yes, obviously. Imagine all the money from NBA titles would go into creating something like in Ender's Game.

vidya a shit

the more i read, the more i appreciate/prefer literature over film

but im a novice reader and not very well versed in film so what do i know

>film
>Can remember every bit of the movie, characters, etc with ease


>books
>forget what happened in them 80% of the time, forget the names of places/people, forget lines and paragraphs

Wake up.

This is because your brain has melted from constant stimulus abuse

Literal brainlet.

Kobayashi > Kurosawa

Film
Pros: Nothing
Cons: Everything

Film
>Nowadays takes months or years to complete
>Generally limited to about 90-120 minutes
>Extreme length being 180minutes or as short as perhaps 80 minutes
>Caters to sight and sound primarily
>Special effects can provide sight and sound for just about anything

Literature
>A book can be written within 1-60 days. I wrote a novella just shy of 29,000 words long within 100 hours
>Can be just about as long as you want and can take days, weeks, or months to read
>Can include an infinitesimal amount of senses
>Can provide sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch to pretty much anything
>Can also portray thoughts and feelings

A person can cry on screen and you would see they are very sad, and it can be very touching. You wonder what they might be thinking in that moment.

A character can cry in a book, and you can hear their thoughts, you can see in excruciating detail what's going on around them. If she had bit the inside of mouth and caused slight bleeding, then not only could you experience in your imagination the slightly irony taste of the blood, but can also find out that so gutwrenchingly awful does the woman feel that she barely even recognizes either the taste or pain from the bite.

tl;dr

>Is film superior to literature?
No, but it is a very enjoyable form of media and has proven itself to be a fantastic part of culture for the past century or more. We can get glimpses into the path by just hitting 'Play'.

>anyone else feel vidya has the potential for depth beyond all other mediums
no

>Cons
>No words
See: Dialogue.

>Being this tasteless

You wake up. Are you brain damaged?