Thoughts?
I enjoyed the first two movies mainly for the visual symbolism and artistic macabre, for me the plot gets in the way pretty heavily in the second film. Does the book suffer from the same problem?
Book is the first film but with different character dynamics. Daughter from the movie is a nosy neighbor with a crush in the book - still the protagonist. If you read weird subtext into the movie's dialogue it's because the character relationships were changed but the dialogue remained direct from the source. Some other plot details are just the same. "Pinhead" and fellow Cenobites are more scary in the books if you haven't seen the movie, because more is either left to the imagination or more nutty details are described than in the movie series.
>>8184446
Pinhead is a sex ambiguous chick in The Hellbound Heart. That should have been in Hellraiser.
Does anyone else think "Clive Barker" sounds like a dog name?
>>8184817
Pulpy S&M, gore, sex. It reads like the movie feels, except in a bit more erotic detail. That is to say, something cheap, but something cheap with interesting themes and a good tone.
>>8184831
what do you mean by cheap? to me, the only downside to the first two films is a small budget that clearly runs out and or prevents getting a full cast of actual actors, so cheap to me is literally referencing budget constraints. Cheap also invokes concepts like jump scares, motifs that are easy to employ to induce a reaction from the audience. Is that what you mean?
>>8184831
>Pulpy S&M
I got memed into reading this book solely because of it's reputation for BDSM but there wasn't any really.
>This torture is going to feel really good
>Oh actually it's going to completely excruciating and you will beg for death
>nothin personnel
Some mild non-con maybe but nothing to write home about. I've had better faps from reading wikihow.
>>8184446
I remember my religious english teacher really hated Barker.
It's a little "too original."
He's so divorced from the field of literature that he's soon going to be forgotten.
>>8184971
fucking hilarious post. made my night!
>>8184446
I loved the Imajica from him. Don't know about the second part yet, but I'm eager for more from him.
How does that book compare, do you think?
>>8184775
I guess certain aspects got cut or censored if they wanted to retain a somewhat decent budget from New World. that's also the reason the original score was replaced with something more conventional.
>>8184446
The Hellbound Heart, together with the first film, Hellraiser, are an interesting dyad in that the whole thing was run by the author. Both the original work and its original film adaptation were the doing of the same person: Barker got published, and later directed the first movie. And we still talk about both, 30 years on.
This is the more interesting in that authors (esp. King) famously love to bitch about when others got their work wrong, but Barker's first film precludes that possibility in this case. All he can bitch about are the sequels.
As for the book itself it didn't leave a huge distinct impression on me, apart from the film. It's close enough that you could just as easily think of the original novella as the screenplay in its own right, given what I've said. Even the length is about right for a screenplay.
Now, a fun fact for those who may not know: the meme-industrial band Coil was engaged to produce a score, which they produced and delivered, but it went unused.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZS7eM_-jEA
>>8186354
>implying /lit/ is immune, above the fray
