How can literature compete with film? A good film adaptation of a book is superior to the book. 2001 A Space Odyssey...

Cherrypicking. Most of those books aren't particularly noteworthy, so surpassing them doesn't mean a whole lot.

Why aren't there any great film adaptations of Dostoyevsky? Tolstoy? Why isn't there an adaptation of Moby Dick that blows the original away?

How is The Woman in the Dunes? (the book)
I loved the movie but I'm not sure if I should pick it up

>Tolstoy

Ikiru is an adaptation of The Death of Ivan Ilych.

For every good piece of literature, there are a thousand shit books churned out in Wattpad and selfpublished on Amazon.

2001 was written after the film was made.
All of the others are shitty books that were only read by alot after they became films.
Can you name for me a film adaptation of a great world classic that was better than the book?
P.S. I like Man with a movie camera but it does not pertain to this conversation.

You fell into a nice classic pleb trap.
Go back to /tv/ and do some thinking before posting again.

none of those books you mentioned are great works of art you might as well add forest gump and the notebook. film is greater in terms of its universal language but falls short in the ideas it can convey mostly due to its passive nature and the sheer cost /work/ limited run time/audience. films that try to adapt great works of literature are forced to adapt only a piece or one thread of the work because film can't reach the same wide and deep scope of true Literature without straining itself to the breaking point. that's why you will never see a movie with the same depth and scope of Rabelais, The Recognitions, Ulysses, The Bible, Zettels Traum, Homer, Moby Dick, The Decameron, Nibelungenlied, Doestoyevsky, Tolstoy, Dumas (even though he was a hack), Dreiser, Frank Norris, Zola, Dellilo, Gass, Mcelroy, Coover etc. etc. etc. It's the same reason television is killing film, too thin, too shallow all aesthetics no substance.

Twin peaks sucks

Here is my reply. You won't find another one like it in the entire world. I have handcrafted this reply using skills taught to me by Indonesian monks over the course of a quarter century. I have honed these talents into the post you are currently reading. It is clear, concise, and best of all, a joy to read. The use of proper grammar and spelling is above and beyond any mere reading experience brought to you prior to this glorious moment. Indeed, no one has, or ever will, match the tenacity and sheer incredibleness of this post. There's simply no reason to even try. Hang up your posting boots, kids, the game's been won. This is the greatest reply ever posted in the entire history of the world. And you're welcome.

This is the correct response.

This is close to being correct but most of television is shit, even the "highly rated" and critically acclaimed shows in your image. The Handmaid's Tale, 100%?? Come the fuck on. TV critics have no standards.

The ONLY television shows that can compete with cinema are The Sopranos, The Wire, some of Twin Peaks, maybe True Detective Season 1, and maybe one or two others.

Teshigahara's adaptation is honestly on par with the original. Abe is bretty gud.
>Why aren't there any great film adaptations of Dostoyevsky?
But there are. Fucking Bresson and Visconti adapted White Nights.
Mad Men alone is better than most trash this decade has produce. Granted, it's not on par with, say, Wreckmeister Harmonies or Satantango, but still.

Has anybody read literature? Who wrote literature? When was literature written? Has anybody seen cinema? Who directed cinema? Who acted in cinema? Where can I see cinema?

>But there are. Fucking Bresson and Visconti adapted White Nights.
>Implying that retard knows who Bresson and Visconti are

Art mediums can't quite be compared that easily. Yes it's true that adaptations of mediocre books will be better. But it's also true that literature like Ulysses or Moby Dick or whatever could not be adapted; the latter mainly because of restrictions of the medium of cinema such as money and runtime, and the former because prose cannot be transferred across the mediums. One could argue that cinematography and camera movement and editing is the equivalent of prose, but you could not translate one to the other.

Now, when it comes to original works of literature versus original films, then there's more room for subjective opinion. Personally I find that film can evoke emotion and beauty more strongly, and as such the films of say Malick or Piavoli move me more than any book. The former's Knight of Cups is so hypnotic and beautiful and poetic, it grabs the viewer unlike any other film or book can. Editing and camerawork is unique to cinema, and the endless possibilities that come with them, in combination with the verbal aspect of movies, makes cinema in my eyes the most layered and rewarding medium.
Literature is its own unique medium as well, and it has its own unique possibilities, meaning that it's hardly a "lesser" art. It just boils down to personal preference honestly, and both sides have valid arguments, as both offer great things that the other can not.

Now television is a whole different animal. 99% of the time the medium is used for shallow and poorly executed entertainment. I agree with the shoes you listed as the ones that actually try to utilize their medium. Twin Peaks, the new season specifically, is by far the most experimental, and, in my opinion, successful at really stretching and pushing the possibilities of the medium and creating actual art in tv form

there are movies better than their books
there are books better than their movies

/thread

>its universality of language
pure spook

This fucking thread yet again. Literature is infinitely superior, the only limitation to literature is the perceptions of its consumer. In other words, if you're a fucking pleb, you won't get anything out of literature.

Have you never seen the film adaptation of Ulysses?

I love film but the experience I get from reading is a much different experience. Feels more real or something

Please delete this embarrasing thread.

She is the arch typical 10/10

yah
like this. this argument is trash. it's much stronger the other way around, that you're unable to read and IMAGINE the images, so you're more compelled when all the visual legwork is done for you. to 'read and interpret visual images'? who has trouble with that? who can accuse anyone of having trouble with such a basic human ability? silly. hoping there's a touch of facetiousness in that reply. gotta be...

There is a reason this discussion is taking place in the the realm of words. If movies, videos, audiovisual communication at large were superior, this thread would merely be a series of videos used as communication. The fact of the matter is that language is perfectly versatile, usable by even the most destitute of brains, and can express abstract concepts with just a string of symbols. show me a film that expresses existentialism without sound or pictures.

I disagree personally. There is no objective superior art form.

I respect your opinion though

>The Handmaiden, Piano Teacher, Rosemary's Baby, The Thing

What the fuck are these choices lol? You also need to add some more French and Italian

Lol shut up. Stop bumping this thread.

>Shitting on The Piano Teacher

You clearly know nothing about french film.

The only intelligent post in the entire board

>these movies are better than their books
>no they aren't
There you go, as much effort as you put in.