Thread 24805032

...but both are good

>>24805032 (OP)
I'll start with what I know.

Children of men.

In the movie women are infertile. In the original book, men are infertile (hence the name).

I saw the movie first and thought it must be an intentional left wing spin on the story, it fit the mainstream propaganda too well. It surprised me that the book had the poor treatment of migrants as a considerable part of its story. Like why change it when the original work already fits your worldview?

But then I discovered that the last fertile man was a christian priest and it makes sense that the focus had to be shifted away from that.

The book made me understand better how women look at men and it isn't flattering.

>>24805032 (OP)
The prestige.

In the movie they're cool rockstar magicians obsessed by their competitive rivalry.

In the book they're nerdy guys who exploit being at the right time in history and fooling people with tricks, making them believe they're speaking with their dead relatives and such, and sabotage each other by shouting out how a magic trick is done. Very corny. The movie is about their rivalry and magic itself until the end. The book is also about the felt unseen bond between twins and other relatives.
In the movie one magician is ready for the other in sabotaging the transported man trick. In the book, he turns off the power mid transport and it has unintended horroresque consequences.

There is no real cloning device in the book. Not in the movie either, in my opinion.

>>24805044
Based moid

>>24805060
I meant it isn't flattering to women. She jeopardizes the entire human race for a sense of feeling free. Her choices end up in the death of the only fertile man in the world. The child is conceived extramaritally.

But there I also make myself look in the mirror. Her infidelity made me angry, though her infidelity is what discovered his fertility and saved the human race.

Under the Skin
Movie blows the book out of the water though

Eyes wide shut, Traumnovella


Traumnovella has no billiard room scene. The movie follows book closely. The girl who seduces Bill for a paid night is underage in the book, or claims to be, but not underage for its time period and place.

I read the german and english versions side by side to see if I could detect differences in translation and to practice my German. The only difference I could detect is that this girl's hair was described as light brown in the english version, and as curled in the german version.

The movie with the billiards room scene changes the uncertainty of the story. In the book there is the question to some degree how much of it is real and how much of it is imagined, dream, traum. In the movie this is changed to a binary ambiguity: did they kill the girl for "redeeming" him, or did she OD naturally?

>>24805032 (OP)
the movie is literal agitprop. Just because it's wellshot and directed doesn't make it any less insufferable. It might be the best piece of visual propaganda ever made, it is kino, but still.

>>24805103
Kubrick's whole thing was stripping a novel down to its trunk and making a new story out of it. The Shining is so different from the original that Stephen King hated it despite it being considered one of the best movies ever made

Fight Club the movie has a completely different ending than Fight Club the novel

>>24805032 (OP)
i would never watch an DEI hollywood piece of shit
i read therefore i am better then 97% of actual humanity

>>24805197
I mean that's why it was so surprising to me how there's barely a difference between traumnovella and eyes wide shut.

I haven't read the shining and wouldn't want to, so I can't comment on it, but I probably watched 20 hours of videos analysing the comparison.

I'm curious to read 2001: space odyssey, as it was cowritten by kubrick and released concurrently with the film.
Anyone know if it's worth reading?

>>24805198
I read the novel, but I forgot how it ended.

How did it end?

>>24805044
>The book made me understand better how women look at men and it isn't flattering.
I looked at good reads and the majority of negative reviews are from women, oddly enough.

>>24805240
I've read 2001 and watched 2001 and they are more close than they appear, there are a few extremely minor details that the movie adds that the book doesn't and vice versa

2001 is good to read before watching and after, imo.

>>24805032 (OP)
All Quiet on the western front had 4 movie adaptations, and the 79 version was the closest one to the book, as it made the war itself the villain
The 1930 version made 2 villains: the hs teacher and the War itself.

>>24805275
That's interesting. They're mainly complaining about the characters being archetypical and unlikeable. They're not wrong, the book is much more about societal issues like how we deal with criminals, migrants, the elderly.

Women generally aren't interested in big macro ideas.

>>24805032 (OP)
Legion/Exorcist 3

>>24805197
>so different from the original that Stephen King hated it
Which makes it even better.

>>24805032 (OP)
The Shining