Obviously it's impossible to make into a movie, but could it be made into a series? Say maybe 12, 1-hour episodes?

Because it means it's popular enough that someone feels it's a worthwhile investment they can milk the fans with.
It also tends to introduce it to a mainstream audience which is why mainstream audiences often consider film adaptation a success.

Sorry, I know what huge companies think, I wanted to know what's the point with the readers.

I get a kick about imagining how I would adapt it. That's about it. I don't see why any good book should be adapted, but thinking about how you could is always a fun game for me.

Pokler's story could potentially get its own episode, but if it really was a tv they'd cut all the incest/pedo stuff from it and ruin a lot of the meaning
(Also no Anubis scenes prolly)

Without even really thinking about it i would say it should be longer than that. I think you could do a half-decent adaptation that focuses mostly on the narrative.

That being said, the main draw of the book is the use of language and the narrative voice that develops over the course of the novel. The narrator's occasional odd interjections and the sympathy that it allows Slothrop really make the book something else. Plus, the prose is just a pleasure to read.

OTOH some literature on it seems to suggest that it's meant to be read as a movie, that the transitions between sections are intended to evoke film sprockets; this also follows the closing imagery of the theater and some weird invocations of cinematic language. So maybe if it was actually well done, surreal and psychadelic, it'd be cool. Who knows.

I think it's especially fun to think about with Gravity's Rainbow since some of the scenes are written specifically to evoke a cinematic or stage adaptation feel.

Well the point of making it a series is that you could basically make it as long as it needed to be. I originally thought 20 1-hour episodes, but then I got to thinking that just the narrative of the book probably wouldn't need that much time.

I agree with you about the prose of the book, that just the narrative by itself wouldn't have much appeal. I didn't care much for the Inherent Vice movie, but one thing that I thought they did that was smart was to have Sortilege act as a narrator and to superimpose some of the prose that way. Their execution of it was kind of clumsy, but I think it could work for Gravity's Rainbow.

But who would be the narrator? Maybe Enzian?

I did the same with Infinite Jest, even though I didn't particularly like all of it, with the scenes Marathe and Steeply. Thought it could take the piss out of Breaking Bad or something, with those shady close-up deals in the desert.

Why do people care so much about adapting books into movies? You can't film prose

Has anyone purchased this from Amazon for their Kindle? Can anyone share a download of it? It seems fascinating.

It might be me, but I literally have an inner movie in my head when I read. I even have angle cuts and shit when I'm really a-going. But, as a kid, I've always had vivid images rather than "speech" or "word" thoughts.

Maybe it's autism. But I'm sure people like Kubrick had something similar if they adapted so many books.

see
it makes a fun hypothetical challenge

I didn't know this existed until now but I agree that it does seem fascinating and I second that request.

Alex Ross Perry did an """"adaptation"""" of it already. It's called IMPOLEX.

It's hard to watch

I liked Queen of Earth

What? C'mon dude that's easy: Pirate. Why the hell would Enzian know about the white visitation?

Oh shit, Pirate as narrator is a fantastic idea. He could even narrate the fantasies and hallucinations of the other characters.

See this is where it gets a bit cringe though, you don't want to impose Pirate as the de-facto narrator in ambiguous .

huh?

you what?

But who would play Slothrop?

Yeah, for the most part I visualize what I read

Ben Stiller

James McAvoy

>the film is an absurdist comedy inspired by Thomas Pynchon's novel Gravity's Rainbow
>The film, a dark screwball comedy influenced by the work of Philip Roth
>he also optioned Don DeLillo's The Names for a feature adaptation
Is this nigga just working his way through /haroldbloom/core novels? Blood meridian when?

I noticed that too. It comes across as a little pretentious. He makes Philip Roth look like a total scumbag (not sure if he is, but that's the depiction) and makes Bellow look even worse

Look at James Franco's recent directorial efforts... He'll get at all the classics before anyone else can.

More importantly, who would play Byron the Bulb?

...

i have it. i can let you borrow it if you live on the east coast and can meet me half way

im in philly

Dang, won't do unfortunately. It's still in print, so maybe I'll buy it some day. Thanks for offering though!

Good choice

Related thread so I'll ask here; I've just finished the crying of lot 49, where should I go from here? Was thinking of jumping right into gravitys rainbow next, or maybe V

Danny DeVito

Michael Fassbender
Pointsman's played by Stellan Skarsgård
Mexico = Mark Ruffalo

Either will do. I read GR after tCoL49, but V is his first book so maybe it would be interesting to read before GR.

I like the idea of Ruffalo, but Fassbender's cinematic presence has become diluted and I no longer think he's that great. He's like one of the obvious picks, but nah.

VO by Liam Cunnigham

Fine. Daniel Radcliffe then.

Could be cool. Dane DeHaan could find a place in there too.

How do you get that from OP's post? there's several books I'd like made into a series or film, but that doesnt mean I think what you said.

well shit, any chance you can get over the bridge to nj and think of a spot and time to meet? or give me some kind of place to contact you?

I'm on the scorched coast, sadly.

damn, well if a thread like this pops up again and you got a day to drive, you can have my copy for a while. its fun to look through, and to read along with the novel.

and it sucks because im on the boonie side of jersey. its basically alabama here.