Well is he right, /lit/?
"And one trillion non-CG helicopters fell from the sky, crushing at least one hundred innocent, non-CG bystanders. "
>>7704457
No. It would be actually impossible to make film versions of Finnegans Wake or The Tunnel.
>>7704457
Yes. Don't believe the lies of hack directors and stuck up "authors".
he also called the lord of the rings unfilmable
>>7704496
I'd actually like to see someone try though.
>>7704457
I consider cinema to be a higher medium to literature but I'm quite sure he was wrong. He also was a massively overrated filmmaker whose autistic symmetrical compositions are incredibly boring.
>>7704496
Some loony film maker could probably manage.
>>7704496
i don't think that's true, but it wouldn't be a very faithful adaptation
>>7704505
>it is
then the answer to OP's question is he was wrong
>>7704496
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cibQA_LNe9s
>>7704501
>I consider cinema to be a higher medium to literature
Why? Honestly question.
I want to see Immanuel Kants, Nietzsches works in film please
>>7704522
Because the inclusion of sound and image make it more expressive and the inclusion of fixed temporality make it more expressive of one ultimate artist's vision.
Obviously there are a lot more great novels than there are great films, but nothing in literature is as powerful for me as an opus like Malick's To the Wonder or Lewis's The Nutty Professor.
There's nothing a text can convey that pictures can't. Even a fucking good text follows the rule of show, don't tell.
The appropriate question is "If it can be written, why should it be filmed?"
>>7704538
Show me the picture equivalent of the Waste Land then
>>7704538
Do you think you could convey a macroeconomics textbook with as much clarity in a commercial feature film as you could on the printed page?
>>7704552
why not?
There's this Pratchett book that mentions a triangle with four sides and a flat area completely covered with octagons...
>>7704558
clearly the comment was implying fictional text
>>7704536
>Lewis's The Nutty Professor.
Jesus christ, i almost spilled my drink
>>7704570
How about Das Kapital?
>>7704457
it doesn't mean anything, so neitherr
>>7704577
So you're saying you can't back that up?
>>7704573
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni4VOBu6d1o
You could never do something so brilliant on the printed page. Celluloid captures unique genius.
See also, from a minor work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzK8-lxzVPE
>>7704562
Because visual media constrains the consumer's imagination. The two hourish time block of a movie inhibits the development of precise ideas. Cinema has its own advantages, but cannot in any way portray the lyrical splendor of language itself.
This is why almost all Lovecraft movies suck ass. Without his odd choice of antiquated language, his works lose some of their otherwordly appeal.
Overall Cinema is better for articulating an artist's vision, but in doing so crowds out the potential interpretations of those viewing the spectacle.
>>7704581
>Das Kapital
what about it? That's not fictional.
>>7704605
Apparently yes!
>>7704590
rhythm is easy to represent visually. That's what dancing is, essentially. And I don't think doing it in film would be difficult. You either film something with the required rhythm or make cuts to do the same. Rhyme is a little harder, but maybe you could use images that are visually similar?
>>7704621
Person 1: A.
Person 2: No, not A.
Person 1: Well, what about A?
thats your idea of a joke? thats what tickles you ? what the hell guy
>>7704637
That was actually The Odyssey. There was an actual attempt at a Ulysses movie in 1967, but it sucked.
>>7704535
>Nietzsches works in film please
Kubrick already did this
>>7704657
Kubrick was a complete autist and a definite aesthetic Socratist. He thought he was Nietzschean but I really cannot think of a less Dionysiac filmmaker.
We must remember that Kubrick was not actually a very educated man. When you hear him on tapes talking about philosophical questions, he always has a very shallow understanding of them. His reputation for genius is a product of the low quality of discourse in film culture.
>>7704668
>2015+1
>being this pretentious
>>7704657
a quick google search of "nietzsche kubrick" produced a lot of posts regarding 2001. That's what youre referring to, correct?
>>7704675
>trying to frame film as high culture
>complaining about pretentiousness
>>7704536
I thoroughly disagree. In literature, artists can convey, or, more accurately, invoke, ideas through the modality by which we exist--language. The way I see it, books are like little containers of consciousness; and they allow us to walk around in the halls of another's mind, or, at the very least, look through its window.
"He walked around the impossible triangle, staring intently at it from all directions. Yes, every single one."
Good luck Kuby-boy
>>7704699
as are films, if done correctly. As is any art if done well.
>>7704707
shit they did that in inception
>>7704645
yeah the rhythm could be dancing i guess, along with the inclusion of music of course, and i was thinking rhyme could be represented by color in a way, but in any matter i think it would be quite different than reading text
>>7704727
different is not always unequal
yee
I can't see anyone making The Sound and the Fury work as a film. I haven't seen any of the adaptations, though.
>>7704496
Well ofc it's possible, just a matter of interpretation ; therefore Kubrick is right.
>>7704668
Seems like you don't know about cinema, which was Kubrick's job, not philosophy. He spoke through pictures.
>>7704905
>The film of Lolita was shit
That's either bad faith or poor taste.
>>7704905
There is a movie adaption of Tristram Shandy.And MrBTongue says it's decent
How would one make an Infinite Jest movie?
>>7704506
You're a big guy.
>>7704604
Well said
If you can picture it in your head, then why can't it be pictured on a screen?
If you can't picture it in your head, then why are you reading a dictionary or some shitty opinionated piece for fun?
Filmmaker aspirant here. Yes, he is, if you consider adaptations. When you take, for example, a passive protagonist with an intern plot, you must adapt the message brought by his writen sensation and thoughts to actions and a full behavior at all. The only limitantion of cinema, according to Cassavetes, would be that you can't get the camera into the character's head.
>>7704905
> Invisible Cities and basically any other Calvino novel are unfilmable.
No its not. Mix and match Koyaanisqatsi/Powaqqatsi/Naqoyqatsi, 1960s artistic French/Italian dramacomedies and fiction with clear urban thematic films (Alphaville, Enemy etc.) and vignette structure of the likes of Paolo Sorrentino. The Great Beauty even has quite similar aspect of portraying the same city from the eyes of dozens of people in order to convey the structures embedded in uniqueness of experience.
>>7704457
Nope.
Even a basic RL Stine novel had this entire story of a person that was being hunted and troubled by those around him/her. Turns out, at the end, that the person- the first person narrator - was a slimy green disgusting alien.
In many books you find elements and tricks which just wouldn't work in movies. For example, there's a guy in one novel who is tormenting the protagonist's seven year old daughter. He appears to her and she doesn't recognize him. But the character has been introduced to the audience as Ted from accounting, and they'd recognize him instantly in a movie killing the mystery.
After noticing such things, and feeling cheated, I've incorporated a general rule to not use tricks that would fail in the visual medium.
>>7705124
Then you're pretty much writing your own version of the novel. If you have to invent material then it is a contradiction of the statement.
He is not saying, "every book can be adapted". If a first person narrator simply says "I have schizophrenia" but there is not action from him that could tell the audience or those around him that he does, then the filmmaker has to invent a scenario where he demonstrates this fact via action. Or a crappy internal monologue, but then that'll be a bad filmmaker. Also, >>7705159
>>7704535
I'd like to see someone film sections of Zarathustra actually
>>7704604
>The two hourish time block of a movie inhibits the development of precise ideas.
Why are all movies around 1½-3 hours anyway?
>>7704481
A joint venture between Hollywood and the North Korean film industry.
>>7705207
its the perfect amount of time to tell a satisfying story. Any longer than 3 hrs is invasive in one's day and the viewer could naturally become anxious for it to get over with
>>7704501
>Kubrick was overrated
You obviously haven't seen a bulk of his work.
>>7704668
>We must remember
>how to spot bullshit, lesson 34
>>7704538
Any Holy Movies around? Didn't think so.
>>7705553
manual viewer detected
>>7704969
w-what are you saying?
>>7704457
Yeah
It would quickly turn into bullshit thought.
Like if someone wanted to do a film of Notes from the Underground the first half would have to just be some guy talking, or reading, or writing while a narrator reads out the text to the viewer. Then there are lots of philosophical works that would just be that.
Anyone who would enjoy that kind of film would be the kind of person who would enjoy reading it.
Plus they would have to be cut super short. Seems a lot easier just to keep it as a book.
Even stuff like>>7704496 could be accomplished by filming someone reading the text out loud. It is just really stupid to do that.
>>7705553
>Sorrentino
What have you read by him?
>>7705207
movies used to exclusively be something you had to go out and see. any longer than 3 hours and people get antsy/have to go to the bathroom.
>>7704952
>As a movie it's good, but as Lolita it's bad
The worst argument ever. A movie adapted from a book should be a completely different experience. Otherwise, you might as well just read the book.
>>7704668
this is true i guess. i read some interview from after 2001 came out and he had some surprisingly ordinary things to say about space travel/ the idea of life on other planets.
i think you're being a little hard on him though. he's not a philosopher, he's a filmmaker.
>>7704604
This is why I've always hated cinematic adaptations of books. I had in my mind an idea of what the characters looked like then when they put a real face to the character, it feels jarring, trying to reconcile the difference between my interpretation and the director's.
>>7704481
you can CG non-CG helicopters
>>7704496
>The Tunnel
why would anyone waste their time on this terrible novel by a mediocre writer
I'd like to see this filmed
"and but so"
>>7704860
boy do I have a treat for you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs6rYmlP2oM
>>7706411
I like the actual costume, setting but something seems wrong about it Probably because the main appear was being in the minds of the characters rather than just watching them.
>>7706411
What the fuck, did they just show Quentin molesting Caddy? Because that never happened, it was a lie to trick their father.
>>7706500
what point in the video? when he is ontop of her? It was probably the part where they were considering killing themselves so I wouldn't doubt if there was some rough housing.
Its probably over dramatized anyway. whats wrong with that, it makes the movie more interesting. The greeks used to love hearing different variations of their favorite stories
>>7704535
Bela Tarr
Charlie Kauffman
>>7706532
Did they at least show the part (in the whole film) when Jason promises a visit of little Quentin to Caddy, but just shows her the baby through car window and just drives the fuck off? Because I kek'd hard at the part in the book.
>>7706534
Charlie Kaufman is fucking BASED. He and Spike Jones are the best teams, but anything written by him does a pretty good fucking job.
>>7706411
from the thumbnail i was expecting this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-n_zk7e0ZU
>>7704905
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnIMQQPdwns
>>7704457
Who cares if he's right or wrong? It doesn't matter i feel.
What matters is whether the written word will translate well into a film or not. He said it probably to convince producers to let him make more adaptations.
The Aleph, by Borges
Is completely unfilmable unless you are god
>>7704481
Someone get John Landis on the phone, we're about to revive his career
>>7705501
I've seen all of his films except Fear and Desire, Lolita, and Eyes Wide Shut, many of them multiple times. Barry Lyndon is the only film that was actually worth a second look. Everything else is dull and vacuous.
>>7705536
He left high school with terrible grades and never went to college. On a census he would be grouped with other certifiable retards.
>>7705654
He always had philosophical pretensions though, and his advocates have always held him up as a great thinker. He absolutely was not. I would never make this criticism of, say, Frank Borzage - who did have a geniunely profound moral and metaphysical vision but whose "genius" hasn't been shoved down our throats by the entirety of film culture for decades.
>>7706411
danny mcbride in a faulkner adaptation? i'm in
>>7704598
Man you make it easy to dismiss your opinion.
>>7705644
I picked up Lolita today on a whim as well as Anna Karenina
good choices?
>>7707648
>He left high school with terrible grades and never went to college. On a census he would be grouped with other certifiable retards.
Doing well at high school or college has literally no bearing on being intelligent or not to a degree.
>>7707940
>Doing well at high school or college has literally no bearing on being intelligent or not to a degree.
Yes it does. Any halfway intelligent person gets good grades at school because school work is trivial and easy. No intelligent person fails at school - that would be like saying many people with good stamina fall over and start panting after running 100m.
Sorry to dispel this myth. If you failed at school, you are a retard.
>>7707945
That's why I said to a degree, despite what you believe there are plenty of idiots who are only good at school going through college who do not possess the other typical traits we relate to intelligence.
Also doing well at school has no bearing on intelligence just like an IQ test doesn't really measure intelligence, it's a much wider and broad idea that can't be measured by such trivialities.
>Any halfway intelligent person gets good grades at school because school work is trivial and easy
Or they tune out because our current education system is cookie cutter and boring, but dw anon I'm sure you got A+ all day and that makes you a genius.
>>7707953
how would you make school not boring?
>>7707356
>>7704604
Bloodborne is the best visual representation of Lovecraft
I guess that sorta counts
>>7707956
don't teach obvious propaganda as "history" and "humanities" for one thing..
I don't know, I found school alright but I imagine a true genius with an actual intellect in the 1% nothing would make it interesting because they're way too far out the bell curve anything they are being taught would be literal child's play.
Personally I think boys can not be taught being cooped up in a room all day. We are natural observational learners and it's in our evolution to be on our feet doing shit all day, not sitting down writing notes and regurgitating it out to answer questions.
I think my answer is I would change how school is structured towards a way that actually looks at how humans, mainly boys, develop during their childhood and teenage years and adapt school to fit better into how we evolved and how we actually are as creatures, rather then the hum drum test taking, sit in a desk all day environment school is now.
>>7707953
>That's why I said to a degree, despite what you believe there are plenty of idiots who are only good at school going through college who do not possess the other typical traits we relate to intelligence.
Whether or not idiots can do well at school has no bearing on whether or not you can do badly at school and still be considered a genius - as Kubrick often is. You really are not very intelligent, and your defensiveness here is a product of your poor grades at school.
>Also doing well at school has no bearing on intelligence just like an IQ test doesn't really measure intelligence, it's a much wider and broad idea that can't be measured by such trivialities.
IQ is a very good measure of intelligence. What you're repeating here is a comforting myth that is held to by people from IQ deficient ethnic groups and women.
>Or they tune out because our current education system is cookie cutter and boring, but dw anon I'm sure you got A+ all day and that makes you a genius.
I was incredibly bored by school. I barely did any of the assigned work. And yes, I got very good grades and went to a very good university where I was stimulated and also did well.
>>7707995
Your posts says more about your intelligence then it ever will about mine anon.
>>7707356
>>7706411
>Seth Rogen
I don't know what it is but it's already shit.
>>7708001
Yes. It says that I am capable of basic logical reasoning and that, unlike you, I don't run off on irrational tangents to make myself feel good for poor performance in school.
>>7708008
For someone who is "capable of basic logical reasoning" you sure do make a lot of assumptions.
>>7707648
>He left high school with terrible grades and never went to college. On a census he would be grouped with other certifiable retards.
Then he must truly be a genius, thanks for proving the opposite of what you intended to prove.
>>7708023
I wouldn't respond to such an arrogant ignorant anon..
Watch out he's about to lay the smack down with his superior intellect.
>>7708009
I'm not making assumptions. I'm making reasonable inferences that you probably did poorly at school given how firmly you're clinging to this insane notion that some retard who couldn't score well in something as simple as high school math could still be a genius.
>>7708023
What an earth are you talking about, you dummy? Lots of retards make successful movies.
>>7704457
It is true. However the effect would be diffrent. The beauty of book is exactly that they aren't visual. YOU'RE bringing the book to life in your head. Cinema is the opposite of that.
>>7708035
>You really are not very intelligent
>here is a product of your poor grades at school.
Right.. these are "reasonable inferences" done by an individual "capable of basic logical reasoning" when given my first two posts this board as material to make these "inferences."
You should get into psychology or psychiatry because obviously you can read people like a book from a couple of sentences. You'll make thousands anon!
>>7708039
I agree with this anon, the magic of a book is you create the imagery inside your own imagination, where in cinema you are directly given someones else vision from their imagination.
>>7708041
Yes. It's such an illogical argument that you must have non-rational, personal reasons for asserting its validity. Did you not do badly in school?
>>7707956
Discussion instead of having one person talking. Discussion will cut off the real retards and elevate the really intelligent ones.
>>7707945
No, it doesn't. Why the fuck would you want to go each fucking day to the same place just to listen to some frustrated underachiever dumbfuck talking about things when they're the same you can read on the book, especially until University?
University itself if full of immature entitled middle age/old professors who don't even know the meaning of the word "work" that treat you like shit. Most of the time they wouldn't even be wrong considered the majority of the students are dumbfucks themselves with horrid taste and a very restricted knowledge.
School as it is is a joke. And I say that with my country having among the best schools in the world.
>>7708028
>>7708035
>I'm intelligent I swear, please take my opinion into consideration!
>doesn't get irony
>>7704964
The entire movie would be vignettes. Actually probably could work as a show if it had a huuuuge budget but normies would be like "Why is this a show... m-muh plot"
>>7708051
There's no irony. You are thick. Nobody cares about your opinions on intelligence because you are not intelligent.
>>7707940
>tfw instead of talking about the two new books I got a rude anon starts calling me unintelligent
BAKA.
>>7708103
>there's not irony
I typed the post, not you, genius.
>>7708111
Go talk about your new books then. I for one will not be joining your picture book general.
>>7708142
I'm not ignorant enough to grandstand and create a whole new thread about my pointless purchases, I just saw people in this thread had read one of the books and was wondering if they had any thoughts or things I should know.
No reason to be so mean you negative nancy. >:(
>>7707356
10/10 would kek again.
>>7704905
Calvino is trash/Reddit tier literature. A good director wouldn't waste their time
He's right, but great books don't always make for great movies, even if you put great directors in charge of them. Any film version of IF would be shit.
>>7709146
Pardon me, IJ, not IF.
>>7709146
>Any film version of IJ would be shit
[Citation needed]
>>7709146
i don't think that's true at all, although a miniseries would be more suitable
>>7707356
>>7709146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9com2cBzluk
Admit your ignorance and concede, Munchhausen.
Been working on a film adaptation of Valéry's La Jeune Parque for the last couple months. This thread is lol.
>>7707648
Go watch Eyes Wide Shut, it's his best.
>>7704457
he literally told the Beatles that LOTR was unfilmable
>>7704905
Lolita is a 10/10 film
good thread family.
>>7707122
I think it would actually be easily filmable with good results, specially the parte where the narrator sees through the Aleph.
>>7705207
go watch satantango mang
>>7704725
what?
>>7705644
The film should at the very least capture a similar tone or capture the soul of the inspiring moment.
>>7706331
Your bait does not entice me.
/lit/ if full of FILMMAKERS! WOW!
I may be very wrong, but wouldn't you like to see a farewell to arms directed by Wes Anderson? I guess his linear style could suit Hem's prose. Of course it would suck, but I think I'd like to see the part when the lovely couple flees to Switzerland by boat
you guys dont know about films lol
>>7711932
Frank Borzage's A Farewell to Arms starring Coop is one of the all time great films. Highly recommended!
When done correctly, I think television can be a superior medium to both film and literature.
The Sopranos is the greatest thing ever put on a screen in my opinion. It's like an 86 hour long movie in a way, with time to develop characters and themes in a way comparable to a great novel.
>I mean who am I? Where am I going?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bgi3z4M-Mo
>>7712077
I could really do with some nice gabagool right now.
>>7711757
It's shit.
Tarr is shit.
I'm sure you haven't watched it nor read it.
>>7709333
No one cares you pretentious faggot
>>7712077
cringe at you. vidya (video games) is clearly the superior medium.
Videogames is the epitome of art, you can make your own stories and allow your imagination to run wild. I could write an entire novel about my latest run in Dwarf Fortress. It was compounded by the fact that I was an active participant in the story as it unfolded and could influence the direction it took or the characters involved. Video games are, ultimately, the truest of patrician entertainment. You are not limited by the words and workings of another but instead offer your own mind as a guiding hand to shape the story. When you read literature or watch a film you are not participating it at all. It stays the same and always will. Fitting that you don't know what the word means, as you take every effort to avoid social interaction because you're a neckbeard shut-in.
>>7712107
/lit/ on suicide watch oooohhh
>>7712107
Yeah m8, the only thing I'd put higher than vidya (video games) is jerking off. ESPECIALLy without porn. I just lay in my bed and my imagination takes me wherever my dick wants to go. I am the author, director, and lead actor in the greatest artistic endeavour man is capable of.
>>7712107
check this out
http://ludix.com/moriarty/apology.html
>>7704481
Le animation face.
Memes are the highest form of art
>>7712107
Video games are one of the loosest forms of narrative though. When you add that much choice, you have to nearly abandon cinematography and replace it with making individual objects look nice. Much less personal.
>>7712107
>When you read literature or watch a film you are not participating it at all.
You're manifesting images in your mind based on your previous experiences of the world. That's more than participating. That's creation.
For video games and movies the limit is what the director and the developer chose. For literature, the limit is the observable universe.
>>7712274
"making individual objects look nice" is really oversimplifying it. what you're talking about is basically architecture.
No.
>>7704457
Totally agree
The Woman in Black adaptation with Daniel Radcliffe was way better than the book. Better ending, even.
>you will never be a Hollywood filmmaker
Why live?
no, literature can suggest images/impressions that will never arise during a viewing experience and sometimes can't by definition
but u already knew that
>>7704457
He's correct. The only people who cant turn a good book into a good film are people with no creativity and people who are just trying to make some money. Just because Starship Troopers or whatever your example may be isnt as good as the book doesnt mean its not possible. Think about it, thats ONE attempt at making a good film adaptation.
>>7704536
thank you anon
>>7715507
Why won't you ever be a hollywood filmmaker?
>>7715529
That's wrong. You're not even giving a reason.
>>7715570
Because the British film industry is a stagnant nepotistic mess and you can't just move to LA and scrape your way up from abroad.
>>7715624
You should know better than wanting to be a Hollywood filmmaker my dude.
This thread : poor cinema tastes, people seriously using the words pretentious and faggot, talks about video games
lol /lit/, never change
>>7715642
>2016
>not wanting to execute your vision with the best resources available.
>>7704496
i once had a dream in which i tried to adapt finnegans wake into a play.
>>7704952
Its not literal and it does capture the spirit of the novel, it has long tangential digressions into the lives of the actors who are working on the film
>>7706326
that's true. actually almost all cg helicopters in film have been depictions of non-cg helicopters
>>7704457
Gravity's Rainbow.
>>7704457
well, he failed making napoleon.
which is a shame.
>>7704699
well, films do that plus sound and vision, so....
>>7704457
itt: people treating aphorism as axiom
Yes but no
I would say, for real cinema - "if it can be written, it shouldn't be filmed"
>>7705536
more concerned with
>how to spot bullshit
and dismissing ideas based on how they're phrased than in gaining understanding of the claim and responding intelligently
>>7718405
It should be filmed only if it can not be written. - Martin Scorsese
>>7710025
I doubt that is the language he used. As far as I know the only novel he said was unfilmable is Perfume. If he said LOTR is unfilmable, he meant the story was too corny and sentimental to be worth adapting. And of course he's right.
>>7704457
No, because the imagination operates differently when reading. Taste, smell, touch, temperature, pain, kinesthesia, and the whole way a reader inhabits a protagonist's sensory and emotional point-of-view, can be invoked more vividly, intimately and directly through language than via film. Take for example how H. G. Wells's time traveler recounts his mingled panic and rage. and how he behaved, when he finds that his machine isn't where he left it, taken by whom he does not know, to where he might never find it. There are dozens of other passages in the book that are comparably spellbinding in their suggestiveness of how time travel would expose the traveler to frightening isolation amid immense vistas in which ordinary human companionship is absent, and uncertain of return to. Film is simply too voyeuristic, or otherwise operatic, to take the viewer all the way there. At best it goes halfway, though it has other strengths: It can specify tone or atmosphere with great precision, if less power.
>>7715624
Why can't you?
Build a decent filmography where you live and go to LA and take your chances
You'll regret it all your life if you wont
>>7704501
please go kill yourself and make it quick.
Also, as for OP's question: maybe from Kubrick's point of view it was. And he said "filmable", not "giving you the same emotions and mental trips a book/novel/we can". So maybe the answer is yes, but in almost any case (except for example Shining, Clockwork Orange, ...) the written version will be better simply because there's no limit to one's imagination, and the movie kinda kills it. If the director is genius enough to make a masterpiece from a good novel, then it's even better, but it doesn't happen very often.
>>7719207
Yeah too bad that he doesn't adhere to his own saying, fucking pleb trash
>>7720035
>i am le cinephile i love le kubrick look at le symmetry
err kubrick is a hack. what do you think of antonioni?
>who the fuck is that he didn't make le epic 2001 go to r/movies and learn something m'lady *tips fedora*
>>7720150
kek, I'm even italian so you baited the wrong anon. Nice taste tho.
And I ain't no cinephile, but saying Kubrick is overrated without making a point and after that saying Lewis's The Nutty Professor changed his life is an obvious bait that deserves a suicide wish on my side.
You think Kubrick is an overrated autist? Fine, prove your point and we can talk about it, otherwise simply kill yourself.
>>7720163
Stanley Kubrick was an emotionally stunted and uneducated man whose films are hollow shells that only appeal to people because their uninspired autistic visuals are novel to many. He considered himself a Nietzschean, but all he seemed to take away from the German philosopher was his hateful voice and none of his affirmation of life. Barry Lyndon is a rare exception, largely because it is adapted from a fine work by one of the finest writers in the English language and because its historical setting forced Kubrick to turn away from his characteristic fetishes for technology and grim modern architecture.
Jerry Lewis, on the other hand, was a sublime genius who hid his genius in some of the most vibrant and creative films ever - works which understand basic aspects of the Dionysiac vision that all true Nietzschean artists strive after, like rhythm. His formal innovations are not restricted to the tiresome right-on compositions that earned Kubrick the bizarre compliment of 'perfectionist', but rather take joy in geometry, colour, movement and sound. Lewis is a human being, not an automaton like Kubrick.
>>7704481
If something will never feasible exist on Earth CG is acceptable
>>7720378
It always comes back to Nietzsche worship with /lit/ doesn't it
>>7720406
This has got nothing to do with my personal views on Nietzsche. Kubrick's obvious misreading of Nietzsche is good evidence of his stupidity and philistinism.
>>7720484
>misreading of Nietzsche
Absolutely no way to evidence for this. He took from the philosopher what suited him, just like you and everyone else with a mind of their own.
Maybe he was a poser for identifying as a Nietzschean when he was a filthy casual but what does that have to do with his films? You will always run into trouble conflating art with artist because artists are as full of shit as the rest of us.
Yes, but it's only true for Kubrick himself.
>>7712018
THIS IS WATER, ASSHOLE. WELCOME TO LIFE.
>>7720087
He makes one for them and one for himself.
>>7720638
Too bad the ones for him are also pleb shit
>>7704699
But a reader never envisions the writing in the exact same way the writer did.
Of course it's not always the same with cinema, but it's like 90% accurate
>>7707995
>IQ is a very good measure of intelligence
No, it's not. It's a good measure of your ability to solve basic puzzles, and doesn't translate to anything else very well.
It's much more a tool for diagnosing people with mental retardation, and finding the level of functioning those people can have than it is saying how intelligent and great you'll be.
You can have an IQ of 140 and still be a fucking idiot if you don't try to learn anything or improve in anyway, and a person with an average IQ can be incredibly well educated and intelligent if they dedicate themselves to academia.
>You really are not very intelligent, and your defensiveness here is a product of your poor grades at school.
Both baseless assumptions, and attempting to discredit that anon by attacking an image of him you've created.
>I was incredibly bored by school. I barely did any of the assigned work. And yes, I got very good grades and went to a very good university where I was stimulated and also did well.
Wow anon, you're so fucking cool. Must suck that if you don't do the assigned work, your grades will drop to fucking nothing, as in pretty much any educational system I've ever seen, they contribute extremely heavily to the grade.
Even if you're just talking about homework, there's absolutely no way that you could be doing difficult, scientific subjects, refusing to do the actual work, and then still getting good marks in the grade. There's simply no way that you could know the equations or information you need to know without doing that assigned work, it's not something you can just figure out.
Also, have you considered that someone could be incredibly intelligent, but have little to no interest in the subjects provided to them in school? Someone could absolutely dedicate themselves to pursuits outside of structured education, meaning they're going to do shit in school, while also being incredibly intelligent.
>>7704457
Obviously. Whether it's a good idea and whether the film version can reach the quality of the book is another question.
>>7712107
While vidya has the advantage of freedom for the player, it still lacks the imagination aspect of books and presents the player with pre build shit.
>You are not limited by the workings of another
That's bullshit, you are limited by the devs and see the world they intended to make.
>When you read literature. It stays the same and always will.
The words may stay the same, what your imagination does with them changes every time you read them.
>>7707995
>thinks that IQ and school performance matters
>>7722713
>Even if you're just talking about homework, there's absolutely no way that you could be doing difficult, scientific subjects, refusing to do the actual work, and then still getting good marks in the grade. There's simply no way that you could know the equations or information you need to know without doing that assigned work, it's not something you can just figure out.
It's called flicking through the textbook the night before the exam. If you think the kind of content taught at a pre-university level really requires deep study to absorb, you really must be thick as pigshit.
>Someone could absolutely dedicate themselves to pursuits outside of structured education, meaning they're going to do shit in school
This doesn't follow at all, and it's almost as if you've failed to read everything I've said. I had next to no interest in the natural sciences but I still got straight As in them at school because I have half a brain and the content they teach to school children is incredibly simple. If you hate science and do poorly in it, it's because you are stupid.
>>7708035
School was boring, they say he had an iq of around iq, he was curiosity student /man his entire life and tried to learn everything about everything, he read the western canon. What other filmmaker does that
>>7724425
*200
He's wrong. Take Catcher in the Rye. That would suck as a film unless it was slathered with voiceover.
Lolita is way better as a book than any film could be.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2010/04/kubrick-199908
>>7720150
>antonioni
Antonioni was a hack like most Continental directors (defamiliarization and alienation effect are the only tools they understand).
>>7717275
I'd love to have one of those.
Anway it's possible to film anything, but all sense will be lost in certain work, and others will be indistinguishable. It would be basicly a new work altogether.
Now just practically there are works unfilmable. How would you film huge secton of a train of thought authors 'narrative' on Bethovens symphony?
Yeah, but in most cases it has to be altered to the point of not really being the same piece of art. For examples of this, watch his movies.
>>7724541
Antonioni was a true artist. Much better than the French twats like Godard and Rivette (may he rest in peace).
>>7704699
Movies, the way I see them, leave less space for personal interpretation and thus are far more dependent on the director's skill and vision
Will A Brief History Of Seven Killings work as a HBO series
>what is a black hole
>>7727768
something with STDs that you probably wouldn't want to fuck to be honest family.
>>7704721
On Jodorowsky: Are there any other filmmakers like him out there? I just got into him, and The Holy Mountain is the most fantastic thing I've ever seen, but I don't know of anything that even comes close to it. Do you know of any other directors/films like it? Even books/authors, thinkers, music... Anything? Thanks.
>>7727807
Jodorowskt is a vacuous faggot who says shit like "what I do is not magical realism, it is realistic magic"
>>7727819
not op but you shouldn't take him too seriously. Just get high and watch his movies and enjoy the rampant symbolism
>>7704727
tha's called a videoclip anon
it's p. shit
>>7705159
>Ted from accounting
Is that a subtle Sealab reference?
great thread ya got here OP.
damn, cinema must be cinema. We already had a Bresson to teach us that. I'll say that "if a movie can be turned into a book, it's not cinema"
>>7704457
Yes
Film mixes every art form together Ito the perfect product, that's why we have Moulin Rouge.
>>7731538
*into
>>7722713
You two need to go stand in a corner. Arguing with massquotes is lousy articulating skill, and should never be used. NEVER.
You look extremely dumb by dissecting a post and replying to whatever you think in order. So arguing with it about intelligence(!) that is actually quite laughable.
