/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14340707]

Name ONE novel that Kubrick couldn't have adapted and arguably surpass the source material with?

[Anonymous No.14340713]

>>14340707
You know, that one book?
Kubrick couldnt do it

[Anonymous No.14340715]

>>14340707

[Anonymous No.14340719]

>>14340707
The wake.

[Anonymous No.14340732]

>>14340707
Computer Networking - A Top-Down Approach Featuring the Internet, J. Kurose and K. Ross, Pearson, 7th Edition, 2017

[Anonymous No.14340741]

>>14340713
Lolita? The movie>the book

[Anonymous No.14340743]

>>14340707
Ulysses

[Anonymous No.14340748]

>>14340741
No, its My Diary Desu

[Anonymous No.14340750]

>>14340707
Moby Dick
There is no way to get what makes it great across in a visual medium

[Anonymous No.14340752]

>>14340707
Moby-Dick
Every chapter

[Anonymous No.14340758]

>>14340750
>>14340752
Could he have adapted Blood Meridian?

[Anonymous No.14340762]

>>14340707
any stream of consciousness novel

[Anonymous No.14340768]

>>14340758
Yeah, probably
Though ending would be hard to capture

[Anonymous No.14340783]

Jurassic Park

[Anonymous No.14340806]

>>14340750
>makes sure the colors are vibrant
>makes sure the left side of the screen and right is symmetrical
>make sure the camera is always moving steadily
>close up of character at critical moment

[Anonymous No.14340819]

[Anonymous No.14340824]

>>14340707
Faust.

[Anonymous No.14340842]

Anything frog.

[Anonymous No.14340947]

lmao he turned clockwork orange into pure edge, he literally deleted the morals

[Anonymous No.14340978]

>>14340741
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14341006]

>>14340758
It is almost a screenplay as is, mostly dialog and scene description, pretty much any established director could do it. Tarantino is oddly one of the few who could not, everyone is already desensitized to violence in everything he does and the novel would loose much because of it. The man could probably release a snuff film through Disney and no one would flinch.

[Anonymous No.14341042]

>>14341006
Tarantino blood meridian would be awful, comical even. His style completely clashes with it.

[Anonymous No.14341082]

>>14341042
I just think it would be ineffectual if he did it. Did you see that! The leaky faucet dripped again! The violence needs to strongly affect the audience at the start, that is something he can no longer achieve. I think he is very much capable of the style, he is an amazing director, but sadly a somewhat tiresome and gimmicky story teller.

[Anonymous No.14341087]

>>14341082
His depiction of violence was always cartoony to me and doesn’t suit BM’s type of violence.

[Anonymous No.14341091]

>>14340707
Curious George

[Anonymous No.14341132]

>>14341087
Much of it is, you have absolutely ridiculous bits like the sister getting shot in Django, he makes no attempt to hide the fact that she is yanked backwards by a rope, it is obvious, and you have bits like the nazi being beaten with a bat in whats it called, which was far from cartoonish. I think this is part of how he has learned to deal with his audience being largely immune to violence in his movies, the contrast between cartoonish and realistic brings back some of the impact which he has lost. His avoidance of CGI and digital probably does not help much either, but it is also why we end up with those great Sergio style scenes of wide open expanses

[Anonymous No.14341161]

>>14340741
worst opinion itt

[Anonymous No.14341204]

[Anonymous No.14341226]

I love Kubrick, though I think most of his most famous adaptations don't improve over the books whatsoever. The Shining is a real failure to me. King's book is only average, though Kubrick manages to suck all the potential for a compelling story out of it. The performances are great as always and it looks nice, though I don't really think there's much else there - it's a dumb movie.

[Anonymous No.14341300]

Kubrick was a hack. Noticed how when he adapted novels worth a shit his adaptations fell apart but he can only make kino out of trash.

[Anonymous No.14341352]

>>14341300
>Kubrick was a hack.
>but he can only make kino out of trash.

This about those two conflicting statements for a moment.

[Anonymous No.14341356]

>>14341352
Think* not this

[Anonymous No.14341365]

>>14341300
This is an interesting observation, though I don't think this is as negative as you make it sound. I think that generally most of the Kubrick films that are based on very famous/successful books are pretty average (Clockwork Orange or The Shining) whereas the ones that take a lot of liberties with the source material are his best (Dr. Strangelove or Eyes Wide Shut). For me, those latter two plus Paths of Glory are his best. I like Lolita a lot too, though mostly because it's a very different take on the book, and I'm glad he did that.

[Anonymous No.14341366]

>>14340750
>>14340752
>>14340824
>novel

[Anonymous No.14341377]

>>14340707
There were plenty of classics he read that he didnt dare attempt, even stuff seemingly more tame like Crane’s Open Boat.

[Anonymous No.14341385]

>>14340715
Gay
>>14340732
Idiot
>>14340743
Incorrect

[Anonymous No.14341393]

>>14340762
He’d fucking nail the Sound and The Fury

[Anonymous No.14341415]

>>14340732
>novel
But Kubrick was enough of a machine to make some kino out of it. Also Tanenbaum's book is better.

[Anonymous No.14341429]

>>14341300
>he can only make kino out of trash.
That's true in general. Good novels don't fit well on film. The best adaptations have pulp sources (say, the godfather) rather than classics.

[Anonymous No.14341434]

>>14341429
Thoughts on Apocalypse Now compared to Heart of Darkness?

[Anonymous No.14341840]

>>14340707
House of Leaves

[Anonymous No.14342023]

Infinite Jest

[Anonymous No.14342063]

>>14340707

[Anonymous No.14342072]

>>14342063
Is this particularly unadaptable?

[Anonymous No.14342548]

>>14340750
I wish Kubrick did Moby Dick.

[Anonymous No.14342560]

>>14340707
The Shining

[Anonymous No.14342580]

>>14340707
I'd love to see him try Gravity's Rainbow

[Anonymous No.14342603]

>>14342580
He’s dead retard, change your grammatical structure

[Anonymous No.14342606]

>>14340752
>SPLIT YOUR LUNGS WITH BLOOD AND THUNDER
>WHEN YOU SEE THE WHITE WHALE

[Anonymous No.14342785]

>>14340824
Not a novel, but very easily adapted

[Anonymous No.14342822]

>>14340707

The Shining is terrible. Jack might as well have been King Richard IV in Blackadder, more of a caricature than most comedies, affectively sterile, radically unbelievable even in vulgarity. Wendy too, just a yelp dispenser. Fred Flintstone slamming a door is incommensurately more dramatic.

[Anonymous No.14342834]

>>14340707
Scott Pilgrim

[Anonymous No.14342848]

>>14340768

The ending would be easy to capture, what are you talking about.

I think Street of Crocodiles would be difficult to adapt as a film.

[Anonymous No.14342852]

>>14342072
No.

[Anonymous No.14342854]

>>14341434

It's better than the Heart of Darkness starring Tim Roth. . .

[Anonymous No.14342898]

my diary desu

[Anonymous No.14342930]

>>14341366
I'm pretty sure moby dick is a novel bud

[Anonymous No.14343019]

>>14341352
It means he can only improve upon shit because there's nowhere to go but up cause of how far he deviates from it. Try that with a novel worth a shit, Lolita or even ACWO, and his adaptations aren't as impressive. If he actually tried adapting classic literature, his adaptation wouldn't look as impressive.

[Anonymous No.14343102]

>>14340707
Lolita.
>>14340741
Delusional. Even Kubrick himself and his own wife hated the result.

[Anonymous No.14343206]

Ok so what novel do you guys think isn't particularly non-filmable but is too good anyway that a Kubrick adaptation wouldn't hold up either way.

[Anonymous No.14343226]

>>14343206
Kubrick said that if a thing is written or thought then it can be filmed but he also said that the result won't necessarily be a good movie, as in a solid narrative feature film. He knew what books to adapt in order to have a good film.

[Anonymous No.14343237]

>>14341204
Kubrick actually expressed interest about making a movie about this book

[Anonymous No.14343239]

>>14343226
>If a thing is written or thought then it can be filmed

Does this count if you adapt an "unfilmable" book but deviate heavily from the source material?

[Anonymous No.14343244]

>>14343239
as in say a BM film that cuts out the parts that make it "unfilmable" or any other film.

[Anonymous No.14343271]

No one?
Roadside Picnic

[Anonymous No.14343300]

>>14340707
Hopscotch by Cortazar

[Anonymous No.14343306]

>>14340707

[Anonymous No.14343321]

Can't believe no one's mentioned Finnegans Wake
Also, pic related

[Anonymous No.14343373]

>>14340806
>Vibrant Colors
>Moby Dick
Idk what you are on anon. Moby dick should largely have somber colors and a sense of magnitude. Get it like a Casper David Friedrick painting. Maybe use vibrant colors sparingly for a few scenes, but largely it should have that grey lady New England feel.