ITT: the film did it better than the book
pic related
>>8272228
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
American Psycho
Solaris
Fight Club
The Shining
>>8272238
if you go home iwth someoen who doenst have any buks
don fuggem :P
I didn't went to films, I went to the book store.
(probably) requiem for a dream
>>8272228
the shining
salo
american psycho
Jaws, The Godfather, Silence of the Lambs...there's too many of them
Also, I haven't been on /lit/ in years, but we used to have this thread like every goddamn day. Might want to check the archives.
Finnegans Wake
>>8272248
>was the book really that bad?
You know it was.
>>8272228
anything kubrick
holes
>>8272257
not barry lyndon, although the movie is tight, thakeray is a boss hog
>>8272244
Salo is not nearly as thorough and perfectly heartless as its source material, and the original work itself was merely a draft. One actively thrills to the abject evil of Sade's prose, or else actively recoils from it, as the film did not evince like reaction.
>>8272257
except lolita
>>8272257
Clarke's 2001 is genre fiction shlock
Kubrick's 2001 is the greatest film ever made
Anyone read The Exorcist? The movie is one of my favorites, though i heard the book is shit
Game of Thrones.
INB4 butthurt bookniggers.
>>8272339
the book didn't even come out first though, so nobody really gives a shit in the case of 2001
>>8272238
This. Plus I agree with old mate below about 2001 it's a great movie.
Blade Runner.
>>8272238
Was gonna say exactly these. Good job. Include 2001 though.
>>8272484
actually written at same time by the way
>>8272748
yeah but arguably it was a Kubrick project, and not a Clarke project, so calling 2001 a book adaptation would be misleading
'tis what I meant
Admit it.
>>8272228
Drive by James Sallis
The book was atrocious COMPARED to the film.
>>8273400
The Coens captured or rather expanded upon the humour of the source material.
When Sheriff Bell rolled up to the motel and saw Llewelyn I cracked up laughing
>>8272242
bravo quonton tarontini
>>8272383
I agree
>>8272314
how can you even masturbate to a book?
>>8273881
I think you have either terribly misunderstood or then successfully understood the intentions of Nabokov and Kubrick
