ITT: books you actually don't have to read if you've seen the movie
ITT: books you actually don't have to read if you've seen the movie
...
Is Lolita literally the only Kubrick work that didn't achieve this?
a scanner darkly is the only PKD book I would say this about.
and no, off the top of my head spartacus is a better read. I haven't read anything other than that and the two books already posted, though.
You don't have to read any book.
...
The Maltese Falcon
Some dickhead is going to say The Virgin Suicides so I'm here to tell them they're wrong before they try it.
>if i have seen a clockwork orange i don't need to read the book
You're wrong faget, the film and the book gives each one a radical diferent message. user, don't be a fucking lazy and read the book NOW
The Virgin Suicides.
\
put down the book, this shit is amazing
also, most kubrick. Barry Lyndon especially.
>kubrick
plebs
plebs everywhere
stop
sup reddit
fuck off contrarian shit
Kubrick is about as Reddit as you can get. Not to disparage him, but he is.
Barry Lyndon is pleb repellent, though.
Eyes Wide Shut. Both the movie and the book are great tho.
die
Instead of watching Humphrey Bogart be cool you get a first person narrator trying very hard on every page to convince you that he's cool.
Every King novel, really.
...
...
The film is almost word for word the book.
...
Heart Of Darkness
this 100%
Who's the book by?
Arthur Schnitzler
Thanks lad
Always
Although this thread is dedicated to being a hedonistic pleb, you two take it to a whole new level.
The Kubrick Lolita movie isn't just worst than the book, it is, stand-alone, a bad movie. I love his works but this is one of the most uninspired films to come from art house cinema
No way. A bunch of the humor from the book doesn't translate in the movie at all.
There's no movie that adapts all of that. It would include about 2 hours of God reciting a bunch of laws to Moses.
I've read Heart Of Darkness, but Apocalypse Now did the same shit only better.
Mark Rylance is incredible in this show
I'd agree for the most part, except when Peter Sellers is on screen.
>most Kubrick
He's my favorite director, but I'd disagree. He often does things a little bit differently than the source material, and although he tends to elevate it, it's still worth reading the damn books.
...
The 10 Commandments.
>dude it's actually supposed to be a croquet mallet lmao
Moby Dick
>even attempting to convincingly pretend to deny that Kubrick was one of film's greatest artists
Lol no
Nah, man. However, Orson Welles delivering the sermon is a treat and you can tell Peck is trying hard to be a good Ahab.
this
That was overly worded
Easier to say is
>even etempting to pretend that Kubrick wasn't one of films greatest artists.
...
>the ending
You should most definitely read the book
I'm the OP, and I've read the book. You don't need to read it if you've seen the movie. The only difference is that last chapter (which you can read alone) and Alex getting raped.
They cut the girl Llewellyn finds before his death and most of the sheriff stuff at the end. I would rather have the book.
Not a particularly bad movie, but yeah, it's pretty mediocre. The one by Adrian Lyne is even worse.
I hate James Mason stupid face and voice. Kubrick should have pulled the strangelove and have Peter Sellers do all the roles. Even Lolita
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is pretty on point from movie to book. But I'd still recommended anyone read it. Same with Clockwork Orange honestly. It's just hits you on a different level, targets more imaginative senses.
no
Sue me
You serious? Read the last paragraphs of clockwork orange and contrast them with the final scene of the film. Kubrik hijacked the narrative
That's the famous last chapter, which was removed from certain editions of the book. Kubrick didn't read that chapter till he was done with the movie. Like I said here you don't need to read the rest of the book if you've seen the movie. And I've read the book multiple times and watched the movie multiple times, and outside of this chapter there's really not that much that makes the novel greater than the movie. And personally, I don't like that chapter. It seemed too contrived to me when I read it. I prefer the ending of the movie
That was overly worded too. Here's the easiest way to say it
>even egtempingt to asay Kubrick wasntno the grateest film artits
Not at all.
This is probably the only case where I think the movie is better than the book, mostly because of how closely the book and the movie are and how clunky the prose felt at times.
I liked it, but I think I was massively blinded by how cute Sue Lyon was.
10/10 made me reply
Great bait.
Movie is good, tho
One flew over the Cuckoo's nest
To Kill a Mockingbird
All of you are fucking retarded
...
>he thinks A Clockwork Orange and The Shining are good books
>all these faggots going on about the ending of A Clockwork Orange
That's stuff everyone who has so much as read the wikipedia page of either the book or the film knows. This is not hidden knowledge you are privy to. And I'm going to give OP some credit and say he already knows this.
Plebeius maximus
Kubrick's Lolita is actually one of the more rare kinds of films given the context of Nabokov's novel; essentially, the script was written almost as a *supplement* to the book for readers to grasp the artistic depth of Lolita. It stands alone, in my opinion, as a good film. As a mirror of the novel, it enriches the audience's experience.
This.
You read the book and watch the movie because cinema and writing both consist of completely different aesthetics. Reading A Clockwork Orange with all that nadsat is a very difference experience than watching the movie.
That said, i think they're both excellent to be honest.
This but because the movie is excellent and the book is rancid ass waste like all of King's output.
come on
>kboy goodie :)