>>I'd rather read the worst novel ever written than sit through the best movie ever madeDo you share this sentiment?
yes
>>25558771I’m a tv show pleb, so no, ugh
>>25558771No
>>25558771A terrible movie can take at most 4 hours of your life. A terrible novel can make you suffer for months, years if you count fanfic garbage on the internet
NoThat’s retarded
>>25558771Fuck no. Are you retarded? Fuck you
Nah, I can get through a movie faster so I can go back to reading a book I like quicker.
>>25558771Obviously not. The only issue is how far one doesn’t share it.I would rather watch the worst film ever made than read the worst novel ever written, simply because the film will take less time. On the other hand, total reversal ("I would rather watch the worst film than read the best novel") is going too far.What about best and best? That's the tricky one.One problem is there's no clear consensus on either. If I''ve experienced one but not the other I would go for the latter. What about if I know them both? Film probably.
Lame. No. Any "yes" answers are goofy.Even in the case of bad movie or bad book, I think I'd have to go with the movie since it would be over quicker.
>>25558771Lmao no I dont engage in pseud performance art.
Try Bergman, Kurosawa and Tarkovsky and come back. Good cinema can compete with any literature
>>25558771No, some novels are awful and could be burned
>>25558771No.
>>25558965LOL
No lol. I want to enjoy good things not suffer through dogshit just because I'm too much of a crank to know that things evolve
>>25558771id have an opinion if i would know what the book and the movie is made about.
Absolutely notBut I'd probably take a so-so novel over a so-so movie...But probably a terrible movie over a terrible novelBell curves and such
No I pretty much like all mediums of art.Though movies have it rough, they need so many people and funding that in the end its hard to maintain a directors "vision" if they had one to begin with.That said there have been many amazing directors who have been able to achieve their vision. But there are many, many more authors than directors in this category.
>>25558771Yes. But only because "cinephiles" are the most insufferable dilettantes you could ever talk with, and whatever they'd designate as "the best movie ever" would have about as much substance as a mid-tier Dickens novel, and as much artistic merit as a mid-tier Turner painting.The act of watching something like that, knowing the whole time that thousands of people consider it on par with the other arts' masterpieces, I already know it would be a worse experience than just reading Minotaur's Milking Dungeon Part 53 over an afternoon.
100% correct, the best movies are actually just /lit/ adaptations, go ahead and scroll top 100 on letterboxd or letterboxd (or whatever larpers use nowadays) if you don't believe meit's like with anime and manga, only the best manga gets an adaptation
>>25558771No? Bad books take days to read. Ain't nobody got time for that shit. A movie, good or bad, will only take 2 hours of my time and a fraction of the concentration. I'm more forgiving of cinema's limitations given this, than I am of shitty books wasting my time.
>>25558771>Cancer.man>Do you share this sentiment?i crave the truth.
>>25559524>A movie, good or bad, will only take 2 hours of my timeThe best movie is 7 hours long though
>>25558771I'd rather sit through any movie than read any Wheel Of Time book after the first I've again, which I made the mistake of doing when I was younger and didn't know better. And there are a lot of books worse than those Wheel Of Time books.
