#43

Natch…

#44

As good as the film is, it can’t capture the sense of wonder and scale in the final parts of the book. IMO.

#46

You should hang out with @xylo, I hear he’s a gorilla fan too.

4 Likes
#47

Comparatively he is. Nicholson’s Jack is full of suppressed rage, his entire character is one you’re not comfortable with. I’m not sure his meltdown is any more ambiguous than in the book: supernatural forces make him go nuts. The difference in the book is that it has the luxury as books do of giving you a much fuller sense of his character and the decisions he’s made that aren’t good, etc.

I’m a fan of Stephen King when he’s good. I read The Shining and Salem’s Lot back when I was around 11 or 12 I guess and thought they were both excellent. When I re-read them in the last 10 years Salem’s Lot was okay but his writing seemed far less good as an adult, whereas I thought The Shining still was a really strong and excellent read.

(Would still probably say his best book is Dolores Claiborne, FWIW, but I’ve not seen the film of that one.)

#48

Stage Productions that were better than the book but the film was the worse thing ever…Fever Pitch

#49

i think my favourite thing about starship troopers is whenever you see an article about it and someone comments saying they dont like it, theres all these men (always men) saying “oh you didnt understand its satire” as if someone could possibly miss that

thats not my favourite thing but it is a good thing

2 Likes
#50

But the book explains everything. It’s good for sure but I think 2001 is better. Or at the least it falls into another “you can’t really compare the two” sort of hole.

#51

It makes you learn that language as well.

There’s 2 versions of the novel as well isn’t there? Think the yank version has the last chapter missing which is the version Kubrick used for his adaptation. So yeah, the original intended novel is much, much better.

1 Like
#52

Completely disagree.

(haven’t seen the film)

#53

Can’t agree with this. As much as I always defend Lynch’s film the book is excellent.

#54

[quote=“AphexTwinkletoes, post:44, topic:15449, full:true”]
As good as the film is, it can’t capture the sense of wonder and scale in the final parts of the book. IMO.
[/quote]kin ell, twinkletoes!

#55

ruffers has had your adenoids out there, mate

1 Like
#56

he’s too late, I had them out aged 10!

#57

“The thing’s hollow — it goes on forever — and — oh my God! — it’s full of stars!”

That’s the sort of imagery which is ALWAYS better in a book than when you try and commit it to film. For context, Kubrick is the one director I really love.

#58

Die Hard

1 Like
#59

No, @kiyonemakibi is right. The book works excellently within the quartet and it is very good, but the Film takes the essence of the book and turns it into a single story that fits perfectly into its runtime, and includes one of the great little things of cinema.

And you should watch LA Confidential for sure FOR SURE!

1 Like
#60

I think the 20 minute acid trip sort of conveys that?

#61

Danny DeVito?

2 Likes
#62

That’s my point. It sort of conveys it - it doesn’t capture the wonder of it.

#63

Even to allude to it is a sort of spoiler for LA Confidential:

The whole Rolo Tomasi thing. It’s such a well written setup. I don’t think it was original (I recall thinking oh yeah, that old thing) but regardless, that thread fucking kills it every rewatch.