/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20950830]

ITT: literature that got absolutely mogged by their movie adaptation

[Anonymous No.20950833]

>>20950830
>/lit/ - television and movies

[Anonymous No.20950859]

>>20950830
On the topic of Kubrick, the shining was a fucking terrible book but the movie is amazing
Obviously both Stalker and Solaris by Tarkovsky
Blow-up by Antonioni was loosely based on a Cortazar short story, and I think the movie is flawless and the short story is just kind of meh

[Anonymous No.20950869]

what do Americans call films "movies"? do they call books "texties"?

[Anonymous No.20950889]

>>20950830
all Kubrick adaptations from 2001

[Anonymous No.20950893]

>>20950869
It’s literally a British thing. When sound was added to “movies” they called them “talkies.” Nowadays, the term “film, in America at least, is mostly reserved for sounding like an asshole or talking about movies with some sort of merit. i.e. Hiroshima, mon Amour is a film whereas Cars 2 is a movie.

[Anonymous No.20950903]

The Grapes of Wrath

[Anonymous No.20950920]

Trainspotting
>>20950830
Kubrick's version is good but it loses the slang gimmick that the book had, which is half of what made it so enjoyable to read. Also he adapted the American version of the book, which was missing the final chapter.

[Anonymous No.20950936]

>>20950920
> it loses the slang gimmick that the book had
It doesn't. It's present in the film.
>Also he adapted the American version of the book, which was missing the final chapter.
The final chapter is pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.20950952]

>>20950893
Cars, though not filmed in the sense of the word, is a masterpiece of media.

[Anonymous No.20950962]

>>20950952
Cars is dogshit. Pixar's last good film is Ratatouille.

[Anonymous No.20950972]

[Anonymous No.20951414]

>>20950936
>It doesn't. It's present in the film.
Yeah but it's less distracting. You can watch the film without understanding the slang and still figure out what's happening. The book basically forces you to parse what the fuck Alex and friends are saying before you can move forward.
>The final chapter is pretty bad
Genuinely filtered.

[Anonymous No.20951462]

>>20951414
>You can watch the film without understanding the slang and still figure out what's happening.
Literally the same thing happens in the book. 99% of the time it makes sense in context.
>Yeah but it's less distracting.
Because it's used in actual dialogue and thus sounds more natural. How's this a valid complaint? Are you autistic?
>Genuinely filtered.
One can't get filtered by subpar storytelling and
trite and facile ending. So all of a sudden Alex wants to marry and have a family. It feels too forced. Burgess said:
"Readers of the twenty-first chapter must decide for themselves whether it enhances the book they presumably know or is really a discardable limb. I meant the book to end in this way, but my aesthetic judgments may have been faulty."

Yes, his aesthetic judgments were faulty and the American editors were right.

[Anonymous No.20951955]

>>20950830
Hard agree.
My favorite movie, but not even in my top 10 books.

[Anonymous No.20951970]

>>20950833
Honestly, at this point, I just accepted it. no one here reads.

[Anonymous No.20952073]

The Lost Weekend although I’ve never read the book cuz there’s no way it could live up to the movie

[Anonymous No.20952259]

>>20950972
I agree. The book is a lopsided, sloppy mess. The opening chapter and it's tripartite structure is the best part. The movie spins gold out of shit

[Anonymous No.20952416]

The Shining

[Anonymous No.20953028]

>>20952259
> The movie spins gold out of shit
it really is funny, it's a rare case of someone purposefully trying to create shit and acidentally making gold, puzo purposefully wrote the book as schlock, he considers his earlier books to be far better but they sold like shit and he needed to pay his bills and gambling debts, so he saw that gangster books were getting popular so he wrote a book that was filled with as much gore and sex as possible, that's why like a good 10% of the book is dedicated to lucy mancinis cavernous cunt.

[Anonymous No.20953252]

>>20950893
in America using the word "film" makes you sound like a pretentious asshole as well, which is why we don't use it often. it gives a person the impression that the person using is some kind of hip, effete Williamsburg resident who enjoys making rents go up.

[Anonymous No.20953256]

>>20950972
unpopular opinion but I didn't care for it. way too long. Goodfellas is much better.

[Anonymous No.20953455]

>>20953256
it's not that great of a gangster film, it's a shakespearean tragedy about family especially the second one. Everything regarding the mafia in the godfather is either completely made up or heavily romanticised based on literal surface level research into the actual mob. Everything related to family in the films however is incredibly true to life and if you take the murder and crime out the story could be about any family. The wedding scene in part 1 is still to this day the most accurate depiction of a ethnic family gathering i've ever seen

[Anonymous No.20954152]

>>20950962
>cars (2005)
>ratatouille (2007)
>old bad new good (you)
Zoomers get off my board.

[Anonymous No.20954172]

>>20950830
Definitely 2001. Clarke's book was enjoyable but it actually gave too many answers to its own questions, whereas Kubrick left things a bit more open to interpretation. I liked the sense of mystery.

[Anonymous No.20954192]

>>20951414
>Genuinely filtered.
That last chapter guts the book and reduces it too "boys will be boys." Terrible.
>>20954172
2001 was not adaption, Kubrik and Clarke wrote the screen play together and then Clarke wrote the book.

[Anonymous No.20954359]

>>20954192
>>20951462
Correct, rapey psychos like Alex don't 'mature out of it'. Shoplifters and car thieves etc. can, not ultraviolence perps

[Anonymous No.20955234]

>>20953256
Agreed. I don’t understand how people laud this movie when Coppola put out something like apocalypse now. People say the same thing about citiZen Kane, but it’s obvious when you watch it how monumental it is. All the godfather movies just seem like lukewarm, boring melodramas with little inventiveness or experimentation

[Anonymous No.20955246]

>>20955234
i can understand being disappointed by godfather 1 but part 2 is genuinely a perfect film

[Anonymous No.20955269]

If nothing else this one perfectly shows the contrast between film and literature, down to their audiences.
>>20955246
I'm with this anon. Hate 1 and 3, but 2 is simply fantastic in every way.

[Anonymous No.20956872]

>>20950830
Heart of Darkness

[Anonymous No.20956903]

>>20950830
Anyone who says American Psycho is fucking wrong

[Anonymous No.20956917]

Troy > Illiad

[Anonymous No.20956931]

>>20956903
The book is sadistic and shallow and only retards make excuses for it. The movie plays the ambiguity better and the story is more suited to the screen because of it’s shallowness

[Anonymous No.20956983]

>>20956931
>sadistic and shallow
And the movie isn't? That was BEE's entire point

[Anonymous No.20957046]

>>20954152
he's technically right even if he's really not
cars feels new because they pumped out sequels out the ass unlike ratatouille
that said i liked cars as a kid so idk i don't think the first one at least is bad

[Anonymous No.20957405]

>>20953252
No. If I want to see a movie, I watch Batman.

If I want to see a film, I watch Pulp Fiction.

You see the difference?

[Anonymous No.20957445]

>>20950830
All literature that has a movie adaptation.

[Anonymous No.20957636]

>>20950830
Stylistically you might argue this but the movie lost a lot of the substance and was made shallower.

The book is mainly about social control in general with Alex's extreme violence being a steelman case study-i.e., *even with this guy* trying to dominate his mind and soul like he's a machine is wrong. And furthermore its shown that there are a lot of kids like Alex in the and its stemming for a societal failure, meaning the cruel and perverted punishments of the state are its way of placing all the blame on the population for problems it caused in the first place

The ending where he basically becomes a normal person and mellows out as he gets older feels a little weird if taken 100 percent at face value, but works as a way of saying the state will create problems trying to control people when often natural social processes will ultimately sort things out anyway. If it was written today you might think it was all fundamentally about overmedicating and trying to reprogramme kids and overdiagnosing things like ADHD.

It just has a lot more going on than the Kubrick "he's still le evil" ending.

[Anonymous No.20957667]

>>20955269
It's crazy how slick, perfectly judged and effective the Children of Men movie is, when the book is clumsy and messy and scattered and pretty dumb in parts. I quite like the book, but its a book where I feel I can think on the writers level and judge where they went wrong, whereas the movie is one of those cases where I view the creator as above me and way ahead of me, knowing just how everything will land.

Similarly the book and movie have completely unrelated and largely contradictory politics and themes. Book was written by a literal Thatcherite Tory MP while the movie is essentially Anarchist in outlook.

Everything carried over from the book is very surface level too. Its like the director just liked the no kids premise and reduced everything else in the book to just some shared names. The resistance groups for example have nothing in common between the book and the movie. In the movie its a proper, large WW2 style underground insurgency, whereas in the book its 5 useless retards.

[Anonymous No.20957684]

Starship Troopers and the Shawshank Redemption.

[Anonymous No.20957715]

>>20950830

[Anonymous No.20957925]

>>20957405
No. I call everything that moves a film.

When I want to watch a film, I watch The Jungle Book (1967).

When I want to watch another film, I watch The Big Short (2015).

Do you see the difference?

[Anonymous No.20958389]

>>20950920
This. And one detail I loved from the book was how the old man who attempts to kill Alex has plans to do it even before knowing he was the one who entered his house and raped his wife to death. In the movie it just seems like an old man who suddenly wants to get vengeance, while in the book he is more politically active, planning to kill a (not so) innocent person and blame it on the Ludovico treatment.
I love Kubrick and most of his movies, but A Clockwork Orange wasn't better than the book.

[Anonymous No.20958419]

>>20958389
i haven't seen the film, but i thought the book was better without the last chapter. i didn't know about the differences before reading the book and i read the original version with the 21st chapter, but even then i found it a little *off.* the "redemption arc" was very abrupt and dissatisfying, especially considering all the irredeemably horrid shit alex and his droogs did.
still one of my favourite books.

[Anonymous No.20958428]

>>20958419
>the "redemption arc" was very abrupt and dissatisfying, especially considering all the irredeemably horrid shit alex and his droogs did.
I honestly agree. I understand what the author meant to do, but doing it so quickly, in a single chapter, completely separate from the rest of the book, does feel off. It must be why they did not include it in the American version of the book. It seems to be a rushed semi-happy ending for someone who doesn't deserve one, it's only natural it's controversial.

[Anonymous No.20958432]

>>20956917
Kek.

[Anonymous No.20958448]

>>20958428
i'm glad you agree.
>but doing it so quickly,
>It seems to be a rushed semi-happy ending
nailed it.
to be fair, burgess did write the book in like three weeks. still a great book for that short a period. very good writer.

[Anonymous No.20958449]

>>20953256
This. It insists upon itself.