But there are. Movies like Amadeus or Stalker are as good as the best books, if not better.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Amadeus is not better than the best books
lol
2 months ago
Anonymous
It’s one of the greatest achievements in the history of cinema. Everything in the movie, from the music, script, characters to the costumes, plot and acting is done to near perfection.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I know and I like it but it's not better than peak literature. I don't know what you're reading.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Lol frick off. Yes everything is done very well, and it's an entertaining movie. BIG DEAL. You shouldn't be on a literature board if you think t can compare with literature, but you shouldn't be on the IQfy board if you think it's at the uppermost rank of film quality. You judge art like a child.
2 months ago
Anonymous
i don't get it, and the conments do not help me understand
?si=xdDokju61JJ6GaJK
?si=VPAccXpcbOIus53o
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just read Roadside Picnic and Lem's Solaris
2 months ago
Anonymous
Lem hated the movie.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's almost like I wasn't recommending the movies to anon.
One exception I can think of is The Shining, but that's due to Kubrick throwing out almost everything about the story and doing what he wanted with it. Also him being more talented relative to filmmakers than King is to great writers (bigger fish in a smaller pond).
2 months ago
Anonymous
Airport fiction in general can make great movies. The lack of literary merit can be compensated by a talented director visually.
Just look at the Godfather movies.
The source material tends to be simple and malleable enough for the director to in-put their own artistic vision
NO; A STAGEPLAY IS A FINISHED PRODUCT IN ITSELF, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS PERFORMED; A CINESCRIPT IS MORE AKIN TO AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL, OR A RECIPE.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, you clearly haven't read enough screenplays. It's the same as a play. It's dialogue and some prose to establish setting. If plays are literature, screenplays are literature. There isn't any actual differentiator but ignorant snobbery. Read Cormac McCarthy's plays and then read his screenplays. It's the same thing.
2 months ago
࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇
YOU LACK SUBTLETY OF DISTINCTION.
2 months ago
Anonymous
There is no distinction but in your mind. You're accustomed to read plays but not watch the theatrical performances and watch movies but not read the screenplays. This is your own cultural bias.
2 months ago
Anonymous
MCCARTHY ISNT LITERATURE
2 months ago
Anonymous
The thing is most plays aren't literature. The vast majority of dramatic writing is doesn't last. I'm not sure why this is, but apparently it's the one form where it's quite difficult to do something great. By your perspective anything, including telling stories around the campfire, is literature in so far as it contains words. Instead of making trivial points, you should actually suggest movie scripts that stand up as literature. It really seems like there aren't any.
Cinema is a lot more credible if its evaluated by its own criteria, giving priority most of all to its facility with the time-image.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I suppose the Iliad and Odyssey weren't literature until they were written down.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Hm I don't think that matters
2 months ago
Anonymous
It matters.
I think you misunderstood by argument
No, I didn't. Now go ahead and give me your own personal, arbitrary definition of literature.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not going to have a discussion with someone unironically quoting Websters lol
2 months ago
Anonymous
In other words, you're giving up because you realized that you were arguing entirely upon your own shitty definition of literature. >La science qui comprend la grammaire, l' éloquence et la poésie, et qu' on appelle autrement Belles-lettres. Il signifie aussi, La connaissance des règles, des matières et des ouvrages littéraires. Il signifie encore, L' ensemble des productions littéraires d' une nation, d' un pays, d' une époque. >1. f. Arte de la expresión verbal. 2. Conjunto de las producciones literarias de una nación, de una época o de un género. La literatura griega. La literatura del siglo XVI. 3. Conjunto de las obras que versan sobre una determinada materia. Literatura médica, jurídica. >Est scientia litterarum, quae Graeca appellatione grammatica dicitur, letteratura, erudizione, γραμματική. Quintil. 2. 1. 4. Grammatice, quam in Latinum transferentes, litteraturam vocaverunt. Cf. eumd. 2. 14. 3. Sic Seneca Ep. 88. circa med. Prima illa, ut antiqui vocabant, litteratura, per quam pueris elementa, traduntur. Item est plena litterarum cognitio et peritia, qua quis potest aliquid diligenter et acute scienterque aut dicere, aut scribere, ut in LITTERATOR II. 1. dictum est. Cic. 2. Phil. 45. 116. de C. Caesare. Fuit in illo ingenium, ratio, memoria, litteratura, cogitatio, diligentia. Orellius vero legit litterae, cura, etc. >文学,是一种用口语或文字作为媒介,表达客观世界和主观认识的方式和手段。当文字不单单用来记录(史书、新闻报道、科学论文等),而被赋予其他思想和情感,并具有了艺术之美,才可称为文学艺术,属于语言艺术。诗歌、散文、小说、戏剧、剧本、寓言、童话等不同体裁,是文学的重要表现形式。文学以不同的形式即体裁,表现内心情感,再现一定时期和一定地域的社会生活。 >思想や感情を、言語で表現した芸術作品。詩歌・小説・戯曲・随筆・評論など。文芸。 >Gesamtheit, das gesamte Gebiet der Dichtung, Belletristik >skáldskapur í bundnu og óbundnu máli
2 months ago
Anonymous
I already gave Ezra Pounds definition lol. It's pretty basic and it comes down to quality. Good job getting me to reengage btw
Lol, no. They are very similar art forms. Both primarily focus on conveying narratives, they just do it differently. It's more like red apples vs. green apples.
>non-reader thread >literature-hating thread >demoralizing thread
It's all so tiresome. Go watch your movies if they're so good instead of shitting up our board.
It is ceasing to be a matter of how we think about technics, if only because technics is increasingly thinking about itself. It might still be a few decades before artificial intelligences surpass the horizon of biological ones, but it is utterly superstitious to imagine that the human dominion of terrestrial culture is still marked out in centuries, let alone in some metaphysical perpetuity. The high road to thinking no longer passes through a deepening of human cognition, but rather through a becoming inhuman of cognition, a migration of cognition out into the emerging planetary technosentience reservoir, into ‘dehumanized landscapes … emptied spaces’ where human culture will be dissolved. Just as the capitalist urbanization of labour abstracted it in a parallel escalation with technical machines, so will intelligence be transplanted into the purring data zones of new software worlds in order to be abstracted from an increasingly obsolescent anthropoid particularity, and thus to venture beyond modernity. Human brains are to thinking what mediaeval villages were to engineering: antechambers to experimentation, cramped and parochial places to be.
Since central nervous-system functions – especially those of the cerebral cortex – are amongst the last to be technically supplanted, it has remained superficially plausible to represent technics as the region of anthropoid knowing corresponding to the technical manipulation of nature, subsumed under the total system of natural science, which is in turn subsumed under the universal doctrines of epistemology, metaphysics, and ontology. Two linear series are plotted; one tracking the progress of technique in historical time, and the other tracking the passage from abstract idea to concrete realization. These two series chart the historical and transcendental dominion of man.
Traditional schemas which oppose technics to nature, to literate culture, or to social relations, are all dominated by a phobic resistance to the sidelining of human intelligence by the coming techno sapiens. Thus one sees the decaying Hegelian socialist heritage clinging with increasing desperation to the theological sentimentalities of praxis, reification, alienation, ethics, autonomy, and other such mythemes of human creative sovereignty. A Cartesian howl is raised: people are being treated as things! Rather than as … soul, spirit, the subject of history, Dasein? For how long will this infantilism be protracted?
No filmmaker will be able to articulate such ideas in the film medium. All you will get is sappy stories and propaganda.
I wonder how many of the morons in this thread downplaying cinema would say the same about art. I'll try it myself. Here I go.
https://i.imgur.com/DDkydCs.jpg
No. Show me a painting that captures this in strokes:
They fell upon each other, like young bulls, in all the glory of youth, with naked fists, with hatred, with desire to hurt, to maim, to destroy. All the painful, thousand years’ gains of man in his upward climb through creation were lost. Only the electric light remained, a milestone on the path of the great human adventure. Martin and Cheese-Face were two savages, of the stone age, of the squatting place and the tree refuge. They sank lower and lower into the muddy abyss, back into the dregs of the raw beginnings of life, striving blindly and chemically, as atoms strive, as the star-dust of the heavens strives, colliding, recoiling, and colliding again and eternally again.
“God! We are animals! Brute-beasts!” Martin muttered aloud, as he watched the progress of the fight. It was to him, with his splendid power of vision, like gazing into a kinetoscope. He was both onlooker and participant. His long months of culture and refinement shuddered at the sight; then the present was blotted out of his consciousness and the ghosts of the past possessed him, and he was Martin Eden, just returned from sea and fighting Cheese-Face on the Eighth Street Bridge. He suffered and toiled and sweated and bled, and exulted when his naked knuckles smashed home.
They were twin whirlwinds of hatred, revolving about each other monstrously. The time passed, and the two hostile gangs became very quiet. They had never witnessed such intensity of ferocity, and they were awed by it. The two fighters were greater brutes than they. The first splendid velvet edge of youth and condition wore off, and they fought more cautiously and deliberately. There had been no advantage gained either way. “It’s anybody’s fight,” Martin heard some one saying. Then he followed up a feint, right and left, was fiercely countered, and felt his cheek laid open to the bone. No bare knuckle had done that. He heard mutters of amazement at the ghastly damage wrought, and was drenched with his own blood. But he gave no sign. He became immensely wary, for he was wise with knowledge of the low cunning and foul vileness of his kind. He watched and waited, until he feigned a wild rush, which he stopped midway, for he had seen the glint of metal.
Film studies and literature studies are, while they have some overlap, different fields for research. Don't see it as a competition, see it as broadening of the mediums that are available.
How about you read a book. What I said has been obvious to everyone (of any intelligence) since the origins of movies. If you want an in-depth explanation it shouldn't hard to provide one for yourself with a traditional aesthetical education in German philosophy.
>blah blah blah i can't express myself so i have to write condescending garbage on IQfy's (formerly IQfy (formerly IQfy)) IQfy board to compensate
Ironically, if I took your advice, I'd actually come out at the end of it with a deeper appreciation of film.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I'd actually come out at the end of it with a deeper appreciation of film
Yes, you would. The same happened to me. But it also allowed me to clearly see how inferior film is to the other arts, and why it is inferior.
Aren't there many movies who are considered among the "greatest movies ever" adaptions of Stephen King books?
That would mean at least Stephen King books are not obsolete, since they serve as source for movies.
I don't think there is any movie comparable to the best Dosto or Tolstoy works. Or to the Homeric poems.
No, it does (or has--I think the "golden age" of cinema is over) presented a challenge to the novel and to the play because it fulfills to a certain degree their function. But literature, which as Pound said is words charged with meaning to the upmost, is pretty essential to human nature and can never be "obsolete". Literature is about or founded on words and cinema is most of all based on image. Theoretically you could read a film script as "literature" but the thing is nobody ever does that unless they are interested in making movies. There are perhaps exceptions to this but I imagine it's very hard to really display genius in screenwriting given the constraints of the medium. There has never been Ibsen of cinema. That there could be a Picasso of cinema seems more reasonable.
I think it was Wittgenstein who said that an old movie has a quaint feeling similar to looking at an old automobile. This isn't the case with any of the established art forms, reading an old play or listening to old music or seeing an old sculpture doesn't have this effect, even if it's not very good.
For the most part, yes. It's a shame that the most prominent art form today is also the most difficult one to practice. You need a lot of connections and a lot of money to be a filmmaker.
KYS homosexual
Yes but social media and video games made cinema useless so it's only fair.
what new medium will make social media and video games useless?
Full sensory immersion virtual reality porn
Books.
No media, just dopamine injections.
There are no videogames that are comparable to the best movies.
And no movies comparable to the best books.
But there are. Movies like Amadeus or Stalker are as good as the best books, if not better.
Amadeus is not better than the best books
lol
It’s one of the greatest achievements in the history of cinema. Everything in the movie, from the music, script, characters to the costumes, plot and acting is done to near perfection.
I know and I like it but it's not better than peak literature. I don't know what you're reading.
Lol frick off. Yes everything is done very well, and it's an entertaining movie. BIG DEAL. You shouldn't be on a literature board if you think t can compare with literature, but you shouldn't be on the IQfy board if you think it's at the uppermost rank of film quality. You judge art like a child.
i don't get it, and the conments do not help me understand
?si=xdDokju61JJ6GaJK
?si=VPAccXpcbOIus53o
Just read Roadside Picnic and Lem's Solaris
Lem hated the movie.
It's almost like I wasn't recommending the movies to anon.
One exception I can think of is The Shining, but that's due to Kubrick throwing out almost everything about the story and doing what he wanted with it. Also him being more talented relative to filmmakers than King is to great writers (bigger fish in a smaller pond).
Airport fiction in general can make great movies. The lack of literary merit can be compensated by a talented director visually.
Just look at the Godfather movies.
The source material tends to be simple and malleable enough for the director to in-put their own artistic vision
You obviously never played Snake Eater.
Is that the 3rd one? Played it. Doesn't compare to peak kino.
I did when I was young, really enjoyed it back in the day when I was 16. Don’t know how it holds up today though, been a long time.
Technically speaking, film scripts are literature.
I mean if Shakespeare's plays are considered literature I don't see how screenplays couldn't be.
NO, CINESCRIPTS ARE NOT LITERATURE; A CINESCRIPT IS A SKELETON.
It's the same as a play. If Shakespeare can be literature then so can be Mamet. Plays are also a "skeleton".
Shakespeare isn't literature.
KEK. I want this to be the next hot IQfy meme. Make my wish come true.
NO; A STAGEPLAY IS A FINISHED PRODUCT IN ITSELF, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS PERFORMED; A CINESCRIPT IS MORE AKIN TO AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL, OR A RECIPE.
No, you clearly haven't read enough screenplays. It's the same as a play. It's dialogue and some prose to establish setting. If plays are literature, screenplays are literature. There isn't any actual differentiator but ignorant snobbery. Read Cormac McCarthy's plays and then read his screenplays. It's the same thing.
YOU LACK SUBTLETY OF DISTINCTION.
There is no distinction but in your mind. You're accustomed to read plays but not watch the theatrical performances and watch movies but not read the screenplays. This is your own cultural bias.
MCCARTHY ISNT LITERATURE
The thing is most plays aren't literature. The vast majority of dramatic writing is doesn't last. I'm not sure why this is, but apparently it's the one form where it's quite difficult to do something great. By your perspective anything, including telling stories around the campfire, is literature in so far as it contains words. Instead of making trivial points, you should actually suggest movie scripts that stand up as literature. It really seems like there aren't any.
Cinema is a lot more credible if its evaluated by its own criteria, giving priority most of all to its facility with the time-image.
I suppose the Iliad and Odyssey weren't literature until they were written down.
Hm I don't think that matters
It matters.
No, I didn't. Now go ahead and give me your own personal, arbitrary definition of literature.
I'm not going to have a discussion with someone unironically quoting Websters lol
In other words, you're giving up because you realized that you were arguing entirely upon your own shitty definition of literature.
>La science qui comprend la grammaire, l' éloquence et la poésie, et qu' on appelle autrement Belles-lettres. Il signifie aussi, La connaissance des règles, des matières et des ouvrages littéraires. Il signifie encore, L' ensemble des productions littéraires d' une nation, d' un pays, d' une époque.
>1. f. Arte de la expresión verbal. 2. Conjunto de las producciones literarias de una nación, de una época o de un género. La literatura griega. La literatura del siglo XVI. 3. Conjunto de las obras que versan sobre una determinada materia. Literatura médica, jurídica.
>Est scientia litterarum, quae Graeca appellatione grammatica dicitur, letteratura, erudizione, γραμματική. Quintil. 2. 1. 4. Grammatice, quam in Latinum transferentes, litteraturam vocaverunt. Cf. eumd. 2. 14. 3. Sic Seneca Ep. 88. circa med. Prima illa, ut antiqui vocabant, litteratura, per quam pueris elementa, traduntur. Item est plena litterarum cognitio et peritia, qua quis potest aliquid diligenter et acute scienterque aut dicere, aut scribere, ut in LITTERATOR II. 1. dictum est. Cic. 2. Phil. 45. 116. de C. Caesare. Fuit in illo ingenium, ratio, memoria, litteratura, cogitatio, diligentia. Orellius vero legit litterae, cura, etc.
>文学,是一种用口语或文字作为媒介,表达客观世界和主观认识的方式和手段。当文字不单单用来记录(史书、新闻报道、科学论文等),而被赋予其他思想和情感,并具有了艺术之美,才可称为文学艺术,属于语言艺术。诗歌、散文、小说、戏剧、剧本、寓言、童话等不同体裁,是文学的重要表现形式。文学以不同的形式即体裁,表现内心情感,再现一定时期和一定地域的社会生活。
>思想や感情を、言語で表現した芸術作品。詩歌・小説・戯曲・随筆・評論など。文芸。
>Gesamtheit, das gesamte Gebiet der Dichtung, Belletristik
>skáldskapur í bundnu og óbundnu máli
I already gave Ezra Pounds definition lol. It's pretty basic and it comes down to quality. Good job getting me to reengage btw
I think you misunderstood by argument
If a film has a script then it's not a film but filmed theatre
If a film doesn't have a script then it's a social media video.
no then it's a kino
ONLY INDIVIDUALS WHO NEVER READ LITERATURE ASK THAT, OR ASSUME THAT IT IS SO.
LITERATURE, AND CINEMA, ARE TWO DIFFERENT & DISTINCT ARTS.
What is your deal? Would you be willing to do a q&a at some point?
What kind of homosexual question is that, troony?
>asking the local pedoschizos for q&as
Madness.
Soz, anon, I'm too used to Reddit. But while I'm here why don't you go frick yourself you transphobic piece of shit?
Go back, troony.
Make me, incel
No, it's another art form. It's like saying architecture made music obsolete. Apple and oranges.
Lol, no. They are very similar art forms. Both primarily focus on conveying narratives, they just do it differently. It's more like red apples vs. green apples.
Not him but I think you're arguing semantics. Point is is literature viable anymore?
>non-reader thread
>literature-hating thread
>demoralizing thread
It's all so tiresome. Go watch your movies if they're so good instead of shitting up our board.
true/10
No. Show me a film that captures this in images:
It is ceasing to be a matter of how we think about technics, if only because technics is increasingly thinking about itself. It might still be a few decades before artificial intelligences surpass the horizon of biological ones, but it is utterly superstitious to imagine that the human dominion of terrestrial culture is still marked out in centuries, let alone in some metaphysical perpetuity. The high road to thinking no longer passes through a deepening of human cognition, but rather through a becoming inhuman of cognition, a migration of cognition out into the emerging planetary technosentience reservoir, into ‘dehumanized landscapes … emptied spaces’ where human culture will be dissolved. Just as the capitalist urbanization of labour abstracted it in a parallel escalation with technical machines, so will intelligence be transplanted into the purring data zones of new software worlds in order to be abstracted from an increasingly obsolescent anthropoid particularity, and thus to venture beyond modernity. Human brains are to thinking what mediaeval villages were to engineering: antechambers to experimentation, cramped and parochial places to be.
Since central nervous-system functions – especially those of the cerebral cortex – are amongst the last to be technically supplanted, it has remained superficially plausible to represent technics as the region of anthropoid knowing corresponding to the technical manipulation of nature, subsumed under the total system of natural science, which is in turn subsumed under the universal doctrines of epistemology, metaphysics, and ontology. Two linear series are plotted; one tracking the progress of technique in historical time, and the other tracking the passage from abstract idea to concrete realization. These two series chart the historical and transcendental dominion of man.
Traditional schemas which oppose technics to nature, to literate culture, or to social relations, are all dominated by a phobic resistance to the sidelining of human intelligence by the coming techno sapiens. Thus one sees the decaying Hegelian socialist heritage clinging with increasing desperation to the theological sentimentalities of praxis, reification, alienation, ethics, autonomy, and other such mythemes of human creative sovereignty. A Cartesian howl is raised: people are being treated as things! Rather than as … soul, spirit, the subject of history, Dasein? For how long will this infantilism be protracted?
No filmmaker will be able to articulate such ideas in the film medium. All you will get is sappy stories and propaganda.
I wonder how many of the morons in this thread downplaying cinema would say the same about art. I'll try it myself. Here I go.
No. Show me a painting that captures this in strokes:
They fell upon each other, like young bulls, in all the glory of youth, with naked fists, with hatred, with desire to hurt, to maim, to destroy. All the painful, thousand years’ gains of man in his upward climb through creation were lost. Only the electric light remained, a milestone on the path of the great human adventure. Martin and Cheese-Face were two savages, of the stone age, of the squatting place and the tree refuge. They sank lower and lower into the muddy abyss, back into the dregs of the raw beginnings of life, striving blindly and chemically, as atoms strive, as the star-dust of the heavens strives, colliding, recoiling, and colliding again and eternally again.
“God! We are animals! Brute-beasts!” Martin muttered aloud, as he watched the progress of the fight. It was to him, with his splendid power of vision, like gazing into a kinetoscope. He was both onlooker and participant. His long months of culture and refinement shuddered at the sight; then the present was blotted out of his consciousness and the ghosts of the past possessed him, and he was Martin Eden, just returned from sea and fighting Cheese-Face on the Eighth Street Bridge. He suffered and toiled and sweated and bled, and exulted when his naked knuckles smashed home.
They were twin whirlwinds of hatred, revolving about each other monstrously. The time passed, and the two hostile gangs became very quiet. They had never witnessed such intensity of ferocity, and they were awed by it. The two fighters were greater brutes than they. The first splendid velvet edge of youth and condition wore off, and they fought more cautiously and deliberately. There had been no advantage gained either way. “It’s anybody’s fight,” Martin heard some one saying. Then he followed up a feint, right and left, was fiercely countered, and felt his cheek laid open to the bone. No bare knuckle had done that. He heard mutters of amazement at the ghastly damage wrought, and was drenched with his own blood. But he gave no sign. He became immensely wary, for he was wise with knowledge of the low cunning and foul vileness of his kind. He watched and waited, until he feigned a wild rush, which he stopped midway, for he had seen the glint of metal.
The lowest for of collaborative art. It's not the second lowest because videogames aren't art.
Movement is corruption.
Everything is in movement.
stop relying to tripgays
There’s nothing wrong with using a trip.
Now that the IP counter is gone, the age of the tripgays has begun.
>the IP counter is gone
right
>the age of the tripgays has begun
wrong
Film studies and literature studies are, while they have some overlap, different fields for research. Don't see it as a competition, see it as broadening of the mediums that are available.
It didn't even make theatre and opera obsolete
How many people go to the theater and the opera in this day and age? Now compare that to how many people go to cinema.
Nice 90 IQ observation. Obsolete has a definition.
Cinema is an inferior medium. Yes, it offered the world something new. But it can't be compared with literature.
Why not? Give me at least two paragraphs. In your own words. Not some AI's.
How about you read a book. What I said has been obvious to everyone (of any intelligence) since the origins of movies. If you want an in-depth explanation it shouldn't hard to provide one for yourself with a traditional aesthetical education in German philosophy.
>blah blah blah i can't express myself so i have to write condescending garbage on IQfy's (formerly IQfy (formerly IQfy)) IQfy board to compensate
Ironically, if I took your advice, I'd actually come out at the end of it with a deeper appreciation of film.
>I'd actually come out at the end of it with a deeper appreciation of film
Yes, you would. The same happened to me. But it also allowed me to clearly see how inferior film is to the other arts, and why it is inferior.
>durrrrr you can't criticize something if you can't make it
Go back to the youtube comments section, you stupid fricking moron.
Am I really sharing a board with a bunch of ESLs?
He’s right, though.
About what? All he did was throw a tantrum about something I didn't even say.
boring = good
fr fr
Aren't there many movies who are considered among the "greatest movies ever" adaptions of Stephen King books?
That would mean at least Stephen King books are not obsolete, since they serve as source for movies.
I don't think there is any movie comparable to the best Dosto or Tolstoy works. Or to the Homeric poems.
No, it does (or has--I think the "golden age" of cinema is over) presented a challenge to the novel and to the play because it fulfills to a certain degree their function. But literature, which as Pound said is words charged with meaning to the upmost, is pretty essential to human nature and can never be "obsolete". Literature is about or founded on words and cinema is most of all based on image. Theoretically you could read a film script as "literature" but the thing is nobody ever does that unless they are interested in making movies. There are perhaps exceptions to this but I imagine it's very hard to really display genius in screenwriting given the constraints of the medium. There has never been Ibsen of cinema. That there could be a Picasso of cinema seems more reasonable.
I think it was Wittgenstein who said that an old movie has a quaint feeling similar to looking at an old automobile. This isn't the case with any of the established art forms, reading an old play or listening to old music or seeing an old sculpture doesn't have this effect, even if it's not very good.
Gravity's Rainbow is the best movie ever made
For the most part, yes. It's a shame that the most prominent art form today is also the most difficult one to practice. You need a lot of connections and a lot of money to be a filmmaker.
in other words, it's just as it's always been for anything that matters