/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11005336]

ITT movies that are better than the book

[Anonymous No.11005346]

>>11005336
Clockwork Orange

[Anonymous No.11005383]

>>11005346
this
>>11005336
your picunrelated is better in the book. the indian nigger going on about how he'd seen the machinery inside his pills and how they rigged it to make it disappear before he could prove it is top-tier.

obligatory heart of darkness/apocalypse now

[Anonymous No.11005388]

>>11005383
shit i meant to "this and" not "this". clockwork orange the book is much better if you get the one with the final chapter. if you get the one without the final chapter, i can accept the movie might be better

[Anonymous No.11005397]

>>11005388
>if you get the one without the final chapter, i can accept the movie might be better
there are two different book versions?

[Anonymous No.11005401]

[Anonymous No.11005408]

>>11005336
>Lolita
Movie or book ?

[Anonymous No.11005409]

>>11005336

The Godfather
Brokeback Mountain
The Shawshank Redemption

[Anonymous No.11005415]

>>11005397
there's an ameritard version which chops out the ending. the original american ending is "he can't change stuck in darkness". the original ukfag ending is "he gives up and joins society".

ameritards apparently wouldn't be convinced that the state could force you to change your mind like you'd never been an individual but inextricable from society. i think most new versions include the "extra" chapter, but the movie is based on the ending that amerifats would buy.

[Anonymous No.11005465]

>>11005415
The bong version ending is pretty much, ‘Oh well, Boys will be boys. Young Álex was just going through a rape and murder phase but he’s outgrown it now.”

Bongs are degenerate. The American publisher was right to cut it.

[Anonymous No.11005467]

[Anonymous No.11005475]

>>11005401
most of stephen king's books make better movies
>>11005336
thought the book was more cohesive and heartwrenching imo

[Anonymous No.11005499]

>>11005409
Seconding The Godfather. The difference in quality is unbelievable. The book is complete trash.

[Anonymous No.11005501]

Michael Crichton

[Anonymous No.11005504]

>>11005388
>>11005397
>clockwork orange the book is much better if you get the one with the final chapter.
No, it makes everything dull, might as well not write anything.

[Anonymous No.11005509]

>>11005408
The only Kubrick adaptation in which the book is better than the movie. Even his wife said so.

[Anonymous No.11005521]

>>11005467
i hope the next time you get a haircut it looks slightly off and you feel self conscious for a bit until it grows back

[Anonymous No.11005522]

>>11005499
>implying the movie is good

[Anonymous No.11005525]

>>11005415
>ameritards apparently wouldn't be convinced that the state could force you to change your mind
It's not that they forced him to change his mind. He just "grew" out of it.
>>11005465
I mean, you didn't go though a rape and murder phase?

[Anonymous No.11005540]

[Anonymous No.11005547]

>>11005540
Nah.

[Anonymous No.11005570]

>>11005467
>>11005521
Shots fired

[Anonymous No.11005575]

>>11005504
>law of the jante isn't more horrifying precisely because it works
>being this much of a north american protestant
I'm not sure how you felt it made nadsat, the rape scene or anything else retroactively dull, but his metanoia makes the world and character more complex. It's a Catholic trope that's why I'm pointing out the likelihood of you being Protestant and not getting it. You'd probably call all of his M/F >>>/trash/ for it's last line, and have problems with a lot of Graham Greene or Muriel Spark's endings as well because they're from the same kind of background and appreciation of the world. While the countries that have the Jante Law, or even communism, tend to get why that kind of ending is more horrific, it's harder to understand if you have the kind of culture that Protestant America has (which was even stronger in the time it was published).

[Anonymous No.11005581]

>>11005336
> watching movies
kys

[Anonymous No.11005586]

>>11005525
>It's not that they forced him to change his mind. He just "grew" out of it.
I should have probably said society. What I like about that is they all grew out of it. The adults and everyone else who isn't a teen used once do that shit and he'll one day be like them scolding his son and refusing to understand why he might be like that.

[Anonymous No.11005591]

>>11005509
Wasn't Nabokov in charge of the script ?

[Anonymous No.11005613]

>but muh combine

[Anonymous No.11005633]

>>11005581
lel

[Anonymous No.11005658]

>>11005521
In what regard are the books better?

[Anonymous No.11005682]

[Anonymous No.11005688]

>>11005591
Yes but what Kubrick actually shot is much different than what Nabokov wrote, he kept him as the screenwriter out of respect.

Also pic related

[Anonymous No.11005690]

>>11005521
lmao

[Anonymous No.11005713]

The Talented Mr. Ripley

>however the rest of the series is much better as books

[Anonymous No.11005724]

[Anonymous No.11005727]

Even the author admitted as much.

[Anonymous No.11005779]

>>11005713
Inferior adaptation

[Anonymous No.11005807]

>>11005724
Lold

[Anonymous No.11005818]

>>11005727
sadly the movie and book are equally shit

[Anonymous No.11005905]

>>11005467
>>11005658
Literally every regard. The only good stuff from the movies is basically word for word straight from the book. Everything PJ altered or added is mediocre at best and nonsensical and ruins scenes/characters at worst. The Hobbit movies clearly demonstrate that he has no idea what to do without source material to copy and paste.

[Anonymous No.11005921]

east of eden

[Anonymous No.11005943]

>>11005682
This is a tough one. I honestly think the two are kind of hard to compare because of how different they are. Both are excellent, but maybe Stalker had a bigger impact on cinema than Roadside Picnic on literature? In that sense maybe it is better.

[Anonymous No.11006010]

>>11005943
I think Roadside Picnic achieved whatever it was trying to achieve more effectively than Stalker achieved whatever it was trying to achieve.

[Anonymous No.11006016]

>>11005818
Movie is good for what is is. Get real.

[Anonymous No.11006031]

>>11005409
Brokeback was pretty damn good writing. Proulx at her finest. Great collection too

[Anonymous No.11006038]

>>11005905
>>11005905
I never said The Hobbit was better as a movie, only the LoTR trilogy.

[Anonymous No.11006042]

>>11005540
Are you kidding? The movie is just a parody of one of the greatest right-wing treatises ever.

[Anonymous No.11006050]

>>11005724
I agree and I love the book. This is the most underrated film of all time. Glad Jodorowsky didn't make his pretentious abortion of it. Lynch is the best.

[Anonymous No.11006059]

>>11005905
Agreed. PJ stanks and butchered the Hobbit

[Anonymous No.11006060]

>>11005346
Yes

[Anonymous No.11006068]

>>11005408
Book

[Anonymous No.11006069]

>>11005336
Apocalypse Now desu
Heart of Darkness was underwhelming as heck

[Anonymous No.11006072]

>>11006010
I think I'd agree if we were talking strictly philosophy and theme, but considering the more uniquely cinematic achievements of Stalker, achievements that can't be compared to anything in the book, the choice becomes significantly harder. It's one of my favorites, and worth countless viewings.

[Anonymous No.11006080]

>>11005336

Hate to say it but 1984. The movie is just fucking great. John Hurt was underrated.

[Anonymous No.11006119]

[Anonymous No.11006292]

>>11006072
Well, from a purely technical point of view Stalker is a greater achievement in cinematography than Roadside Picnic is in prose by much.

[Anonymous No.11006790]

>>11005724
It might have been if it wasn't missing two thirds of story content.

[Anonymous No.11006858]

>>11005346
ew no

[Anonymous No.11007034]

This is the most obvious one.

[Anonymous No.11007066]

>>11006069
Both are very good for what they are. You have to approach HoD with the understanding of British adventure novels a la Robinson Crusoe, whereas Apocalypse Now is 100% American by design.

[Anonymous No.11007177]

salo or the 120 days of sodom

[Anonymous No.11007448]

Inclusion of romance. Making the instructor and father narrative arcs more compact and profound. Even the loss of the Sci-Fi elements (battle suits & cyborg dogs) improves the narrative because it forces the soldiers to fight as a band of brothers with greater group-identity and philia; rather than being individual super heros flying around the battle field 400m+ apart.

[Anonymous No.11007483]

>>11006050
Are you me? I've never heard anyone have this opinion I am usually fighting faggots about this.

[Anonymous No.11007490]

unironically

[Anonymous No.11007522]

>>11005467
The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition) was excellent and pretty faithful to the materiel, but I'd rather just read Two Towers and Return of the King than watch those long ass movies again.

[Anonymous No.11007526]

>>11005581
Film is superior to literature is every way

[Anonymous No.11007534]

>>11007526
This might be the worst bait I have ever seen on lit.

[Anonymous No.11007537]

>>11007534
it's true

[Anonymous No.11007544]

>>11007537
Not happening, pal, pack it in
Move along

[Anonymous No.11007555]

>>11005346
It doesn't give you the experience of learning a part of a new language. The ending sucks in both versions though.

[Anonymous No.11007569]

>>11007526

I like them both :)

[Anonymous No.11007596]

>>11005336
But why didn't they escape when they got the window open?

[Anonymous No.11007638]

>>11007490
I agree for the most part. The movie is funnier (despite most of the script just being command c, command v), just based pretty much on le dubs meme man's performance. The book was plenty funny, but I feel like it did a better job portraying the existential feeling of "there is only the idea of me" side of Bateman's character. The lists are not that annoying if you just kind of let them wash over you and don't worry too much about actually picturing what the people are wearing or eating or whatever. Although it is pretty funny that he describes the businessmen dressing like peacocks and helps show the decent into madness.

[Anonymous No.11007642]

>>11005346
Anything Kubrick, except maybe Lolita

[Anonymous No.11007649]

Stoner, if it comes out

[Anonymous No.11007692]

>>11007034
The PS2 game was better in every way,had tons of fun fucking up cunts with broken bottles in multiplayer mode with my cousin,great times.

[Anonymous No.11007720]

>>11005467
The film adaptation has a very different feel to me, the "epic" tone of the novels dialog and narration just isn't there as much save for some of the voiceovers and monologues.

[Anonymous No.11009005]

>>11005408
Book is much better. Nabokov had a prose style that literally pulled you in to the world of the book. The whole first chapter of HH youth get's glossed over in films, but in the book its pure magic, and you sadly understand and sympathize with Humbert because you understand Annabel Leigh meant to him.

[Anonymous No.11009011]

Anything by Bresson or this guy

[Anonymous No.11009015]

>>11005336
Book was better, you understood the characters more, and it made McMurphy's fight against the nurse more touching.
The film is great too though, the film is what made me interested in reading the book, so kudos to that.

[Anonymous No.11009016]

>>11005408
You can't film prose which was like 99% of what made Lolita great.

[Anonymous No.11009035]

>>11007177
Someone has eclectic tastes. ¬_¬

[Anonymous No.11009171]

[Anonymous No.11009192]

>>11007642
Definitely Lolita

It's the weakest Kubrick film (well, one of) and has the strongest source material

[Anonymous No.11009195]

>>11005591
You can read Nabokov's screenplay (I'm assuming it's online somewhere, one of the collected works books I own has it), it's very different to the film

[Anonymous No.11009265]

>>11005727
I mean it's one of my favourite movies. I can't decide which I like better though, the ending of the movie was a bit more cringe

[Anonymous No.11009380]

>>11007177
The magic of the book was how unfinished it was though, it was genuine fun to read Sade's little scribbles on the side. i.e "write this better" Also the constant mistakes were funny too. it was written in a month.

[Anonymous No.11009406]

>>11006119
Here's your (you)

[Anonymous No.11009411]

[Anonymous No.11009488]

>>11005336
everything by Corncob

[Anonymous No.11010392]

The Third Man

[Anonymous No.11010399]

easiry

[Anonymous No.11010449]

>>11005336
No

[Anonymous No.11010488]

>>11010399
Whatever argument you make regarding the quality of the film or the book, the movie completely abandoned the original intent of the book - rendering any comparison of quality of presentation of the original intent as being moot.

[Anonymous No.11010535]

>>11005713
Purple Noon is much better than this.

[Anonymous No.11010739]

>>11010488
They are not even on the level where you can compare how they used a similar concept to do different things. It would mean comparing a pretty standard Hollywood noir flick to the spiritual ramblings of a literal schizophrenic.

[Anonymous No.11011320]

Spielberg's best work since Schinlder's List.

[Anonymous No.11011332]

>>11009005
The great thing about the book is that Humbert is trying to make you sympathize with him. The whole Annabel segment is all part of his massive trick. He knows what he is doing is totally fucked, he lets this slip in the latter parts of the book. The movie was alright, book is amazing.

[Anonymous No.11011362]

>>11010399
Nope. And it's not even close to the book

[Anonymous No.11011381]

>>11011320
>Schinlder's List.

[Anonymous No.11011444]

>>11005521
Dude calm down

[Anonymous No.11011449]

>>11005540
I think the book is good and the movie is fun

[Anonymous No.11011464]

>>11006292
>purely technical point of view
can you tell me what exactly astonishing technique have stalker the movie?. you are just parroting what you heard.

[Anonymous No.11011495]

Plenty of kino made from shitty books. A bad book is arguably better for adaptation

[Anonymous No.11011512]

>>11011464
You are correct in fact. I don't care that much about it and I already expressed my preference for the book but I didn't want to look prejudiced so I tried to give it some credit for the sake of those that wouldn't accept that it is anything less than a masterpiece. I forgot that there are also people that would be offended if you suggest that it is good in any way.

[Anonymous No.11011522]

the cuckoo's nest book is better, but to contribute to the thread

Apocalypse Now >>>>>>>>>>> Heart of darkness

[Anonymous No.11011548]

>>11011512
no, i just dont think that from a "technical point of view" stalker is unique. i want somebody explaining it to me.
normally the people who likes it say "esoteric" things to defend it.

[Anonymous No.11011554]

>>11005336
Little Children by Tom Perrotta

[Anonymous No.11011567]

The Night Manager, although it's a miniseries

[Anonymous No.11011576]

inherent vice

[Anonymous No.11011602]

>>11005540
Yes. The book is a hack dabbling in a fascism he doesn't understand. The film is a sophisticated artist satirising both the short comings of the source material and it's echoes in wider society.

[Anonymous No.11011607]

>>11007534
literature is a subset of film so it's objectively true

[Anonymous No.11011613]

>>11011602
More like the other way round.

[Anonymous No.11011652]

the book is just your average pulp fiction

[Anonymous No.11011680]

>>11011320
It is unironically a massive improvement upon the book though. Spielberg turned a bad book into a slightly above mediocre movie.

He did the same thing to a better effect with the movie Jaws.

[Anonymous No.11011701]

>>11006080
John Hurt was a truly outstanding actor. Even on projects like Watership Down and Doctor Who, things any Hollywood runoff actor could excuse halfassing, he gave his all and delivered a fantastic performance. An absolute legend.

[Anonymous No.11011717]

>>11011548
Oh, well, as I suggested I am not an expert on film and I we watched the movie only once so my amateurish opinion is not worth much but I did find it to be well shot. Why didn't you?

I don't know to what extent the techniques were unique and I don't know why you care if they were unique or not but they were used well enough to contribute to a final product that leaves a vivid visual impression in the viewer.

The movie does have some sort of spiritual meaning that might have a merit on its own. People that value that aspect of the movie might find it difficult to separate their personal emotional investment in it from a more inpersonal opinion about how the movie achieves its ends.

I'm pretty sure that if you can look around you can easily find enough articles that strive to point out the technical merits of Tarkovsky's work.

In any case you also shouldn't get frustrated just because you don't like something. It's not really a big deal.

[Anonymous No.11011720]

>>11005522
>when you get quad-dubs but decided to shitpost
Niggers ruin everything.

[Anonymous No.11011752]

In Cold Blood (1967) is a pretty based movie

[Anonymous No.11011774]

>>11007034
>>11007692
mah niggaz

[Anonymous No.11011951]

>>11005509
Add eyes wide shut to that

[Anonymous No.11012008]

We Need to Talk About Kevin
Lionel Shriver has a needlessly complicated writing style, basically saying very little with as many words as possible. The film milked the book for just about everything it could, then added great cinematography.

Yes Man
This is a shitty, shitty movie, but it literally changed my life by getting me to take action, which broke me out of a depressive state.
I figured with such an important message, the book must be better. It's not. It's even fucking worse.

[Anonymous No.11012020]

>>11012008
I share your opinion on Yes Man. I don't know why, but it doesn't seem like any better movies have been as good at simply getting across the idea that you should stop turning down the plethora of offers you receive.

[Anonymous No.11012389]

>>11005336
Yes
>>11005346
No
>>11005401
Both are terrible

[Anonymous No.11012493]

>>11009011
He turned Solaris into dumbed down trash and I don't even like Lem that much.

[Anonymous No.11012748]

[Anonymous No.11012758]

>>11012493
>watching movies for intellect

[Anonymous No.11013308]

>>11011567
The mini series went too Hollywood with its ending. Although I hear they're considering continuing the series.

[Anonymous No.11013316]

>>11005346
depends if you think the ruthless youth can be changed or not.

[Anonymous No.11013805]

>>11005336
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3NoDEu7kpg