/lit/ - Literature

ITT: Books that, in your opinion, are much better than their film counterparts

Pic related. If the film hadn't made adjustments it'd be the perfect watch-along material for the book, but as is the film is incredibly slow paced and lacks any explanation for the later events of the film.

In particular, the scene where Dave reaches Saturn in the book, approached the monolith and subsequently saying "My god, it's full of stars!" shows clearly that he was using some sort of wormhole/transportation device to another sector of space, but Kubrick's just staight jump from the ending of HAL to Dave chasing some random monolith in space and being thrown into a pool of color just didn't make it clear at all.

There are a lot of other points in the film that are weird as shit and don't make any sense without getting information from the book too, like why HAL went and did what he did. I get that Kubrick was going for ambiguity, but there's ambiguous and then there's "being a dick to the audience".

The film is slow paced, and tries to be much deeper than Clarke's original script was. This cemented my personal opinion that Kubrick is just a film maker I'll never be able to enjoy the works of. His films are amazing, no doubt, but on a technological level only - he lacks the ability to build empathy for his characters or to connect with the audience, and is all about spectacle.

Personally, I'd like to see 'Childhood's End' adapted.

>>2673369

Occasionally a strange and good narrative can work well in both media.

Bit of a stretch, I know.

<<Hey /lit/, I just finished this book. I was pretty impressed. Anyone else like it?

>>588799

you never really saw that movie, did you?

maybe on a little teevee with the sound down low..

In any case, 2001 is a non-issue.

The novel 2001 is by Arthur C. Clarke BASED ON a screenplay by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick. (Take a look at the 1st edition's cover.) The screenplay came first.

The concept for the screenplay was from The Sentinel short story by Clarke.