ITT: Times when "the book is always better than the movie" got BTFO. I'll start with a classic.
>>63347274
Of course it's better, it cuts out all that annoying Tom Sawyer shit.
Cinéma is a different language than literature
They tried to adapt Ulysses once and it was garbage. Likewise there's never been a good Shakespeare adaptation.
>>63347333
>Likewise there's never been a good Shakespeare adaptation.
Are we really gonna do this?
>>63347381
Yes. Shakespeare is meant to be seen on a stage, not a screen. The acting dynamic is completely changed.
>>63347333
>>63347406
>>63347406
CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT
WELLES TOOK SHAKESPEARE AND MADE IT INTO HIS OWN VISION
THATS WHY ITS A MASTERPIECE
>>63347462
I feel this way about Romeo + Juliet desu.
>>63347406
Im pretty sure that Throne of Blood is superior to Macbeth. The play is a 8/10, film is solid 9
>>63347878
More like scrambled eggs are solid 9/10 and fried is 6.
>>63347274
Is this bait? I feel like not enough people know about this movie to see how wrong you are.
>>63347981
Not bait. As far as basic storytelling goes, I felt that the movie's changes to the ending were for the better.
I love the book though, and I understand why you disagree. The book explores and discusses motifs in ways that, obviously, a movie can't. Even the Tom Sawyer shit had a purpose. I just think that the movie's story was better without it.
All Kubrick adaptations. In your face, William Makepeace Thackeray.
>>63349991
>All Kubrick adaptations
u wot m8
