/lit/ - Literature

Film and literature are distinct mediums with distinct strengths and weaknesses, and comparisons of this sort tend to miss the point of both

>>7342041
that's some middle-school profound shit

>>7342047
Provide an actual response and/or refutation or get lost

>>7342041
this

/thread

>>7342037
>kubrick
>good

>>7342041
>it isn't possible to compare apples and oranges
please go away; there is no reason we can't compare the value of a book vs. its movie adaptation

>>7342041
Tell me one weakness of film please

>>7342041
Hello pre-grad

>>7342041
Something can be a better film than it is a novel precisely because they are two distinct mediums. A pear is better at being an apple than a lime is at being an orange.

>>7342057
Pauline Kael

GRRM is entertaining but mediocre. The show is entertaining and quite good (although I suspect it will tail off like the source material did).

>>7342037

the only answer desu

also There Will Be Blood

along with Assassination of Jesse James... 2007 was a fucking great year for cinema

Franco's adaptation of As I Lay Dying is superior to the novel in every conceivable way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO68Kd2yQsE

>>7342060
The point is that literature conveys meaning via written description whereas film does via audio-visual means. I find it more fruitful to focus on how a film uses its medium's inherent properties to tell the story rather than try to determine whether it's "better" than the literary work it was adapted from, which to me seems too reductive.

Inherent Vice is a better film than it is a novel.

>tfw watched two Kubrick movies (2001 and Barry Lyndon) and I don't get them

>>7342037
Blade Runner, Solaris and Howl's Moving Castle

>>7342088
That's not really saying much. A shit covered in glitter and whipped cream is still shit.

>>7342093
I always saw 2001 as the lifespan of humanity, from its dawning/birth (apes learning how to use tools, etc) to death/rebirth (the light sequence/the fast ageing of the astronaut/space baby/etc)

Although I guess there's not really a concrete answer to it. I remember reading that Kubrick and Clarke were priding themselves on the fact that if you understood it, they failed.

>>7342093

>blade runner

oh no you didn't

>>7342092
the movie is p bad desu. the book was great

>>7342093
But anon those films are pure craft. It's not the meaning of the content, its the content itself.

>>7342092
Give over, like you even understood either, ya fuckin mook

>>7342092

underrated movie

>>7342104
I love the book too but I gotta politely disagree, anon. I really enjoyed the film too. I think your casual PTA fan would be surprised with how peculiar Inherent Vice is but I see that film gaining a cult following in 10 years time or so.

>>7342114
It was a really fun movie, probably his most entertaining since boogie nights

>>7342089
Film is not a storytelling medium

>>7342127

edgy memer right her u guise!!11!

>>7342127
Correct, it's an audio-visual medium. However when a film adapts a novel it tends to tell a story.

>>7342118
>>7342114
agreed, but i had to watch it a couple of times before I really got into the swing of it (not read the book though, pls no bully ok)

>>7342127
There is no such thing as storytelling medium.

>>7342089
A film is better than a novel when it uses the properties of the medium of cinema better as a film than its novel uses the properties of the medium of literature as a novel.

All that is just to say that a film can be better than its novel. Happy?

>>7342134
yes there is, it's called video games

>>7342101
>>7342106
I mean, I more or less get the "point" of the movies, I see why people praise them, visually they were great, but I didn't connect with them. They felt too impersonal, as if they were just sterile, cold reports on those events.

>>7342102
Oh, yes, I did.

>>7342037
Not at all, it lacks the vital final chapter.

>>7342162
Never liked the final chapter desu. It is vital to the books message but it felt a little to corny and too "aw he had some good in him after all! "for me

>>7342060
James Cameron

>>7342134
Hurr Dee durr you're right!

>>7342137
I get this, but when people act like one necessarily must be superior to the other even if both works effectively use the strengths of their respective medium (which in my experience tends to be the way people approach this question) it's just silly and reductive.

>>7342037
film is too 2-d

>>7342086

Agreed. Bardem's Chigurh is masterful.

And seriously, how fucking great is The Assassination of Jesse James? I still fire up the soundtrack every once in a while, it's haunting and amazing. Nick Cave and Warren Ellis completely nailed it.

>>7342197

and they tell me Brad Pitt is a meme actor

>>7342197

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzinPgsxokE

Legitimately some of the best cinematography I have ever seen.

>>7342037
Jaws, The Godfather, Touch of Evil (Badge of Evil), Psycho, Hunt for Red October, Double Indemnity, Cape Fear (The Executioners) The Thing (both 50's and 80's versions) The Fly (Cronenberg).

>>7342041
This so hard.

>>7342181
It's reductive of you to reduce their judgment that one work is superior to the other w/r/t their mediums to the trivial fact that each work is simply an artifact of their mediums.

>>7342200

He himself has said that Jesse James is the best movie he has ever played in.

It's /lit/core in a lot of ways. Slow pacing, masterful character development, panoramic scope and genius acting from both Pitt and Affleck (yeah, there's a sentence that might ruffle some feathers) combine to make it a masterpiece.

>>7342248
I'm not saying that and already conceded that some inter-medium comparisons are valid. I'm more reacting against the sentiment that two adaptations of one story in two separate mediums necessarily must be working toward the exact same ends. An inventive and overtly cinematic adaptation is preferable imo to an adaptation that merely attempts to transfer the text of a novel to moving images, and when I hear people say that the film version is worse because it didn't include every scene in the novel, to me they're missing the point of film.

kongwork omange
nakey lumsh
conch 22
a recky em for ur dreams
depth of th sell male
th cruise able
lmaolita
markem enks autobioogriog
fear n loafing in nemada tenxas
ibberent dice
arry poah n th primler of abakadabra
armenian psyichc
sgob neilgram vs the erth
le homlit
dorm of the ring
googfellows
two million an: 1space oddly
shalom 120 week of deep dickin
an old countre for old (white )_men
linkin park
shaun of the dead
little miss sunshine

than k you 4 listenin to lis t

>>7342268
> shalom 120 week of deep dickin

Mandatory Shawshank Redemption

>>7342268

>>7342268
> linkin park

>>7342089
jesus you're a boring fuck

>>7342319

>>7342080
>I suspect it will tail off
>will
>implying

Solaris

>>7342101
no shit. each time we find a monolith it literally signals the evolution of mankind (the second one shown is an alarm system)

what's more interesting is kubrick's alluding to the monoliths actually being cinema screens

>>7342088
Has anybody here actually seen this? I've heard it was shit.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is much better than its source material.

>>7342041
agreed and thanks for saying it

/thread.

>>7342037
honestly book was better. the original ending was more down to earth with alex realizing it was time to grow up. in the movie it's a bait and switch with the notion of "cured." yeah he's "cured" but he's a reckless faggot again. I mean who wants to deal with that in real life?

>>7342093
Blade Runner is shit though.

>>7342421

He's not a reckless faggot, he's "cured" because he has learned that you can still get away with being an assholish slave to your passions within the context of what is socially acceptable and you don't need to be a delinquent thug to do it.

>>7342157
2001 is shit

.>>7342363
>what's more interesting is kubrick's alluding to the monoliths actually being cinema screens
What? Source? That's a cool idea.

>>7342037
One Flew Over The Kekoo's Nest

>>7342060
Unable to make a deeper understanding of the environment through metaphors and similes
Listening to the train of thought of the main character is often limited with small inserts of voice-overs

>>7342820
That lunatic rob ager came up with the theory. It's actually pretty interesting, but take his interpretations with a grain of salt.

>>7342037
If you seriously think Clockwork Orange is good, fuck off back to /r/movies

>>7342041
>if things are different you cannot possibly compare them
ur a real idiot my man

>>7342852
this is ideology

>>7342852
He cites hard even from the directors themselves, though. He'd want you to be skeptical either way

btrer then the book:)

>>7342852
Name one flaw in Clockwork Orange

>>7342037
I disagree with your selection, the movie played up his sexual abuse far too much, even suggesting that he was being sexually assaulted by the priest in prison, which didn't come across at all in the book version, and ruins the idea the scene was trying to convey. Similarly, the movie's change in scenery to modern and kitsch interiors added nothing of value, it downplayed the contrast with the crude characters.

Jurassic Park was a much better movie than a book, along with Silence of the Lambs and The Shawshank Redemption

>>7342886
Kubrick, like with most of his adaptations, rewrote Clockwork with very different intentions than the Author.

>>7342832
>One Flew Over The Kekoo's Nest
ayy

>>7342820
>>7342813
>>7342852
>2001 is shit
>Blade Runner is shit
>If you seriously think Clockwork Orange is good, fuck off
Roger Ebert btfo, /lit/ is the best movie review site.

>>7342900
what makes it better? I read the book before seeing the movie, maybe we're both biased based on how we envisioned it

Pic unrelated because there is no argument to be had

>>7342041
>hurr durr, you can't compare fruits

>>7342037
best example in my opinion is Naked Lunch, the movie about the book about the writing process

>>7342900
He hardly rewrote it, he just took the american version because he didn't get the point of the original.
Also, he just wanted to be trendy and get one of the pomo sculptors to join in, because if you get a respected artist (especially in the fine arts) then your movie must be deep and good.

>>7342914
Well I personally find the movie far more memorable than the book, but it also had a far larger cultural impact.

>>7342936
The precise changes in detail were minor, yes, but they suited a far higher purpose. Kubrick never wrote things frivolously.

>>7342929
>>7342919
its not even based on the book in the slightest
the film and the book are in no way related
they share only a title and a few very limited citations of the source material and even then the Burroughs quotations are mostly taken from other works
u r really a idiot my man

>>7342875
>Name one flaw
1. No ideology of any worth beyond a bland moral nihilism which is "shockingly" neither a pure expression nor a critique. Maybe this superficial failure to reprise moral norms was more powerful at the time of the films releases but it falls flat in the time of Family Guy rape jokes on primetime television and Tarantino movies.
2. The films parodic style and fantasy aesthetic signifies a disinterest on the part of Kubrick to engage actual moral or social issues, and also a lack of empathy, something which was central to Burgess' depiction of Alex and his droogs. This refutation of understanding actually flattens the world of the film and the main characters, reducing them to cartoon villains.
3. The mean-spirited mocking characterisation of all the films cast in a bland attempt to make us question the morality of the society at large furthers this hollow signification of postmodern emptiness, all the while obviously reproducing our feelings of moral repugnance without saying anything new about them
4. The films painfully, intentionally detached attitude towards sexual violence and assault, even going so far as to assert that Alex's elderly victim was herself the *real* sexual pervert. Again this was probably seen as subversive at the time to audiences strictly consuming from the mainstream, but far more shocking (and difficult, thoughtful) material on sex and violence was available in the videocassette markets of the time, video nasties and such.
5. Many of the aesthetic and narrative choices work less to produce a coherent future society but actually (from a current perspective at the very least) seem to be in service of a "so random" thrill ride of colourful set pieces - it is a film which neverlooks like anything but a film set
6. The film rejects the central claim of the novel, about Alexs sociopathy being part of a stage in his social psycho development which is overcome when he grows up. Kubrick's "ironic" cure is actually more transparently moralistic and less thoughtful

Those are 6 reasons i don't like the film...overall i would say it is morally bankrupt and boring with nothing to say about society. someone once said that Kubrick was a robot whose movies are solipsistic affairs. i would agree that this is true and in cases like 2001 and Clockwork this makes his films empty of meaning and a little bit infantile, reading like a kid showing off his new toys.

but... in his earlier movies especially The Killer and Strangelove, maybe due to the limitations on budgets comparative to the later films, Kubrick exercises a more thought-through and resounding moral and social statement. Also the "detached robot" approach works well in his horror film The Shining to make a lucid statement about the genocidal function and tendency embedded in American culture. I think The Shining is a much better film than 2001 and Clockwork put together...

>>7342947
Kubrick is a hack

>>7342037
Fight Club

It was an alright book and the subject matter is kinda middle school but it works very well as a movie.

>>7342268
holy fuck

Requiem for a Dream

>>7342037

Battle Royale

>>7342971
>>7342929
Is the movie good?

>>7343546
Not the 70's movie?

>>7343546
I think there are four adaptations of this. None of them have been well-regarded critically or commercially.
Does this lead to a single conclusion?

>>7343550
Why the fuck was Bruce Dern in that

>>7343556
Why not?

>>7343548
Surely, you jest.

Not exactly an adaptation but pretty fucking close.

>>7342093
Solaris is a fucking masterpiece, Tarkovsky was god tier

>>7343013
So basically you're a pussy who doesn't like how Kubrick didn't write it word for word as the book.

>>7342342
underrated post
no responses as evidence of how pleb is this place

>>7343698
calm yourself

>>7343703
Brakhage is better, anyway.

>>7343550
the 70's movie was just one big jazz dance video. I do prefer the performance of Nick Caraway in it, though.

>>7342366
nope, but why don't you watch it tonight?
https://kat.cr/as-i-lay-dying-2013-hdrip-xvid-etrg-t8053460.html

Drive. The book's structure is interesting but it's filled with weirdly purple passages.

>>7343553
that the book is much better?

>>7342342
Why?

I think that the book can't be called inferior in any way at all. If anything, I'd call them complementary. One is cerebral, one is emotional. So you get your Apollo and your Dionysius.

>>7343013
very good points. i see a clockwork orange as nothing more than cheap entertainment myself (it's pretty fucking funny).

plus it's just a rip off of funeral parade of roses which is fucking brilliant.

better than or equal to the book:
The Exorcist
The Exorcist III

>>7342080
>implying austere-tier medieval shit is good

>>7342947
>Kubrick never wrote things frivolously
While I don't disagree generally, saying "never" implies you've got a case of the ideologies

>>7343790
>real human bean

>>7342041
they're both generally working to express similar themes but through different mediums so yeah you can, that's dumb, you're just so scared of looking dumb that you aren't saying anything.
That makes you look dumb.

>>7342037
Just posting to say I hate anyone who responded with Blade Runner. It has some points for style, but it wasn't remotely profound aside from "yada yada in the rain," which I think was an improv'd line.

Do Androids Dream.. is full of Jungian shit and sad fake pets. I freaking adore that novel.

This one has been contentious in my experience. Jonze and Sendak worked closely together developing the story, Eggy wrote the script. Lots of allusions to moments in the book, but with it's own story that makes it a feature-length film. What were y'all's reaction to it?

>>7343936
So what?
Don't take my word for it, read up on his methods. This was a extremely meticulous man, maybe the most that's ever come out of Hollywood.

>>7343952
Gandalfini was a rather strange choice.

>>7343961
>Gandalfini

>>7343995
OH!

>>7342041
>it's better to say nothing at risk of being wrong

Harry Potter

>>7342832
>One Flew Over the Kekoo's Nest

Holy fuck no. The movie completely abandoned the whole concept of unreliable narrator from Bromden's perspective and just fucking took a nice steaming shit on the concept of the Combine. The only thing that I could say was good about the film was probably Jack Nicholson's performance. Other than that I don't think it's superior than the novel. Hell, even Kesey said it was shit.

>>7342060
too short for proper character development.

>>7342268
> shalom 120 week of deep dickin

Fuck, this one's my favourite

>>7343454
Not those guys but I can't leave you hanging, dude. The movie's good if you like Cronenberg - it's kinda like if Cronenberg was to attempt a Lynchian project. It very much feels more like a Cronenberg film than a Burroughs' story, but there's still that self-loathing homosexual tendency and dirty junky vibe about it that Burroughs often wrote about.

It's not perfect but it's admirable and deserves repeated viewings, kinda like how the book deserves repeated readings.

>>7343546
Baz Luhrmann's adaptation is underrated, honestly. It's kitsch as fuck but that reflects well on Gatsby himself.

>>7342819
no he's "cured" because he's the same old Alex again which is ironic because it challenges our notion of what "cure" means in the context of the movie.

>>7343952
I loved it and it offered a maturity to family films that is often very rare nowadays.

>>7343961
I remember being initially surprised as Gandolfini is usually better as an asshole-type, but I think he delivered a charming and empathetic performance. The ending of that film usually makes me tear up.

>>7342088
I have a feeling your the one person who keeps saying it, and it just isn't true. If you haven't read the book you have no fucking clue what is happening most of the time. It just plain does not stand alone, so it can't be a better adaptation. The only thing As I Lay Dying is the fact that some parts/feeling are interpreted in an easier to understand manner, so the plebs who read the book didn't get it can feel like they're getting it now.
An example of adaptation done right: No Country for Old Men, you have no reason to have read the McCarthy novel to understand what is happening, or even to get the full effect.

>>7345419
There are 3 hour long movies.

>>7345766
And a good script with a good director can make plenty of great character arc within 90 mins.

>>7345419
You've never watched H-8 or Lawrence of Arabia or 12 Angry Men or Citizen Kane, right?
Or haven't considered the fact that theatre plays aren't much longer than movies and yet many of the greatest fictional characters were created there. (Hamlet, Medea, Oedipus, Faust, Phaedra etc etc)