movies that misinterpreted the books that they were based on
the movie didn't misinterpret it, Kubrick just actively chose to not adhere to it (as was the case with everything he adapted)
>>63051939
How so?
>>63052034
>Book
>Anti-authoritarian coming-of-age story showing the positive and negative aspects of free will
>Movie
>Hurr look at thsi wide angle lense tits tits tits alex is soo le evil government is le bad tits tits tits
>>63052135
What you wrote about the book is the same thing I took away from the movie. You can argue one does it better than the other, but you haven't convinced me the film misinterpreted the book.
It's been a while, but i remember it being quite faithful to the book apart from not including the final chapter of the book, which changes the meaning of the overall story somewhat due to the implications of the conclusion
>>63052208
i never really got anything pro-free will from the movie besides beethoven
>>63052211
spot on
in the book, Alex is actually 'cured' by the government intervening which undermines the "anti-authoritarian" tone of the rest of the book
>>63052211
Never really understood how the book's ending changed the larger meaning of the story versus the film. Everything about it feels tacked on. Kubrick just hangs onto the cynicism for humorous effect and Burgess doesn't.
What was that one movie where Jack nicholson was in a mental institution?
Starship Troopers
>>63052275
isn't alex cured by the government in the movie to?
and what i got from the book is that the government's attempt to force change is ineffectual, while true moral development comes from the individual, hence maintaining the anti-authoritarianism
>>63051939
better than the book t b h
>>63052249
Then you're not a very astute viewer.
>>63052211
>apart from not including the final chapter of the book
I'm pretty sure this ending wasn't even released until well after the film
>>63051939
everyone knows Kubrick didn't give a shit about the books he based his movies on. He cücked The Shining so hard that Stephen King threw a shit fit
>>63052208
I completely agree, I wrote my psychology final on this movie because I thought it portrayed those issues brilliantly. I haven't read the book either
>>63051939
>>63052316
then tell me what i missed bro.
>>63052337
Books, not sunday comics.
>>63052349
It's your thread. You hold a minority view. Burden is on you to make a case for it.
>>63052307
not really - he smugly says "I'm cured" whilst daydreaming of sex and violence
in the book, after the hypno-therapy, there's a scene where Alex meets Pete again, who now lives a normie life, and decides to turn his back on his destructive behaviour as he no longer finds any value in it
>>63051939
>>63052307
I think the key difference is that the book sympathizes with the idea that people can change and get better and shouldn't be coerced, whereas Kubrick thinks human nature is vicious no matter what.
>>63052400
my case was there was no positive free will aspect in the movie
you're response was "yeah there was you just didn't notice it". i'm legitimately interested to know what pro-free will elements are in it that i overlooked because you're right, i'm not very astute but i'm trying to change that.
>>63052408
>>63052416
Idk. I think it's more besides the point in Kubrick's film. He's not saying that people can't change, but that Alex doesn't change, and we still sympathize with him as an audience, shows how much we value autonomy.
>>63052454
It makes the same argument but without falling back on "oh well, he'll mature in the end." That's why I believe the film is stronger as a piece of satire. We side with Alex despite realizing that, if given a choice, he'll be a bastard.
Kubrickfag and /lit/poster here. Book is better.
>>63052623
That makes sense. I guess I was expecting too much of a straightforward Aesop from the movie instead of recognizing it as satire. Thanks m8
>>63052738
"no"
>>63052738
Nobody is really talking about that, /lit/fag.
>>63052738
/lit/ fag here also. You are definitely wrong. The book is terrible, especially the final chapter that was excluded from most American versions of the book.
>>63052738
NOPE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange#Writer.27s_appraisal
>>63052891
Is this how Brian Depalma feels about Scarface? Interesting, but who cares really.
>>63052891
>Burgess has also dismissed A Clockwork Orange as "too didactic to be artistic"
why can't the didactic be artistic?
>>63052945
Well, there were a lot of omissions from the original book when Kubrik turned A Clockwork Orange into a movie, the final chapter being the most obvious, but there were other parts of the book that were left out as well. A fine example would be at the beginning of the book where Alex and his Droogs jump a university student, and rob a liquor store, and then buys drinks for everybody at the milk bar, thus prompting the manager and customers to provide them an alibi. That's just but one example.
>>63052307
>>63052408
Even with the book ending, the government still didn't "cure" Alex, his change came as a result of his own moral development and maturation. It doesn't contradict the ideas already presented although it takes a different angle on them. With this ending, it suggests that even the most degenerate of individuals can change for the better but that this change must come out their own choices and moral development rather than it being imposed on them by government. With the film ending, it suggests that some people, despite the best efforts of government and others, simply cannot change.
>>63052208
The bookfag in this thread is being a faggot because the film is an incredible adaptation. However the book is even better than the film if you're an imaginative reader and not an illiterate normie
>>63051939
>OP's who think they're hot shit because they finished a well known book
I think I found one
>>63052337
That's three hours of my life I'll never get back. The graphic novel was MUCH better, and I encourage everybody I meet to go to their favorite book store and comic book shop and buy the graphic novel, and avoid watching the movie like the plague.
>>63052848
I've been a big fan of Hunter S. Thompson, and FALILV since I was a teenager, and have read the book many times. I actually have to say that, surprisingly enough, the movie stayed very faithful to the original book.
>>63051939
You want to talk about a movie that misinterpreted the book it was based on? Let's discuss The Wizard of Oz........
>>63052990
And again, I'll argue that Kubrick wasn't concerned with whether people can change or not. You're projecting that meaning based on ommission. The story's argument for free will isn't dependent on whether Alex changes or not, and is in fact weaker if he does. He expresses his free will by being a wicked person, and yet by the end of the film we still want that free will to be restored, because it resonates with us as a human value.
Daily reminder that A Clockwork Orange is really about showing how the EU is fascist http://www.collativelearning.com/ACO%20chapter%2017%20.html
>>63052744
Wow this was the most positive, civil exchange I've ever seen on 4chan
Good on you, drubes
>>63053008
I read it in high school and barely remember it. I just think that people who say the film is missing out on the larger meaning of the story are in fact missing out on what Kubrick did with the film. I don't really care which is better and I consider ACO to be one of Kubrick's lesser works.
>movie
>Alex is a smug prick from start to finish
>book
>Alex is a monster that ends up a human being we empathize with
>>63052033
Or he just has piss poor reading comprehension.
>>63053114
>muh gold standard
>>63053233
thanks sir and checked
Making a good film is more important than sticking to every exact point in a book. All good book adaptations differ in significant ways.
>>63053242
Not empathize, but I did sympathize with Alex even though he was a prick. And it helps that he's a very funny prick. The film's strongest aspect is its comedy.
I do think there is legitimate criticism to be leveled at Kubrick's film, but no one's hit on it. Too much book vs film pissing going on. Seriously, who cares? Both are good.
>>63052332
>I wrote my psychology final
:S
>I wrote my psychology final on this movie
*tips fedora*
>>63053261
Nobody itt has effectively demonstrated that he misinterpreted the book.
>>63053333
nice quads and what criticism is that now that this is an ACO thread
>>63053140
good point
If they wanted faithful adaptation of "Do Androids dreams of electric sheep?" It would've been a three hours long philosophy lectr about what makes us human, instead of noir cop movie like Blade Runner.
Kinda opposite happened with Stallker.
"Roadside picnic" is fairly straight forward sci-fi novel but the movie "Stalker" went off the fucking deep end.
>>63053327
You can make differences without changing the overall point. Fight Club is pretty different and arguably makes the point better than the book.
Missing the point doesn't necessarily make an adaption bad, though. FMJ misses the point of the book, but still a good flim. Jurassic Park, same.
@OP, virtually all YA adaptions miss the point.
Not that I mind, the author was a pretty big SJW kek.
>>63053008
it's a terrible movie much like most of kubrick's work before he left hollywood in an autistic rage. a clockwork orange was pretty much hated when it released, but then years later the fedora tippers get hold of it and pretend to like it so they can feel superior to the plebs below them.
>>63053413
Thing is, there's a difference between a director missing the point, and a director who wants to use a story and make it his own. Not that I've read the Short-timers, but FMJ fits well within Kubrick's other work. It's his own, and it has it's own points to make.
>>63053528
Sure, but then the question comes up of why not just write your own damned story to start with?
>>63052945
The book really hits the unhinged social autist caught in an existential hell angle more than the movie, with the social satire being more of a framework. The movie is great, but makes the satire the subject of the movie - well, that and, "was it real or not?"
>>63053717
Yeh
>>63053658
I don't care too much, so I don't question the process. Everything should be judged on its own merit.
>>63053464
>Kubrick makes terrible films.
Maybe you should just stick to capeshit.
>>63052135
you're masquerading a superiority complex because you read the source material, yet you still say that the movie was a fedora-tier piece of shit.
Reading doesn't inherently make you intelligent, try again bitch.
>>63053956
i already conceded defeat bro read the thread
>>63052848
that's not Where the Buffalo Roam.
>>63053717
how would it not be real? where were the implications for that conclusion?
>>63053988
just finished it, 4chin replies tend to be compulsive sorry you didn't know that
>>63054028
>no ad in the new york times
>Paul Allen had lunch with (what's his name) in London two days ago
Plus various hallucinations throughout the film
>>63051939
Go to bed, Burgess
>>63052337
If anything, took a TOO literal approach to adaptation. Watchmen worked in part because it fit so perfectly into its format, so in making the transition to the screen it really became an improper fit. Also that sex scene set to Leonard Cohen they added made my dick shrivel up like a boiled peanut.
>>63051939
The last chapter and the "change" of Alex were probably not included in the movie because its just a shitty way to end a movie and people would rather have had the ending it stuck with. Its common sense.
This garbage.
>>63052945
Nobody cared about this movie until it became a meme. Fucking 4chan/reddit.
>>63053464
>a clockwork orange was pretty much hated when it released
it got nominated for Best Picture
>>63055948
American Psycho was a pretty popular cult movie.
Was all over YTMND.
>>63055816
it was a shitty ending for the book too.
the logic of the story is that people should be free to make their own decisions, but it ignores the fact that Alex was taking that right away from other people with all the raping and murdering. the book just offers a pipedream that he would grow out of his behavior.
Burgess' wife was raped so it's likely that the cognitive dissonance was the result of him not really being able to accept the logical conclusion of the story that Kubrick chose to end on.
>>63056030
>it's not an Internet meme because it was popular as an Internet meme in another site
>>63052033
He didnt interpret it in the way the writer intended since he removed an entire chapter to better fit whatever he had in mind. ACO is barely an okay movie though, and thanks mainly to the fantastic production
Sometimes it's not a bad thing, OP.
Die Hard and the novel it's based on are both great works of fiction, yet they are very different in tone. An adaptation needs to take the new medium into account, not just be an exact copy of the book.
For example: Red Dragon was very similar to the book, except for a few minor changes. Yet, Manunter was a better movie.
>>63051939
Kubrick just made it better by ditching the last chapter, or did you really want a happy ending for Clockwork Orange?
Burgess praised the movie then said it was misinterpreted when Kubrick made a book based off the movie
>>63057778
Burgess also hated the book after it became popular.
>>63056564
that chapter arguably weakens the books message though and weren't included in the first prints
also im pretty sure kubrick wasn't even aware of the last chapter until production had started
>>63053717
>The book really hits the unhinged social autist caught in an existential hell angle
>that depersonalized monologue towards the end
That hit me like a fucking truck.
>>63053414
I hope you're joking
The fact that they completely ignored the most important part of the whole book is a very strong sign
Watchmen
Kubrick was always fucking shit up. Arthur C Clarke left the theatre in tears after he saw how Kubrick fucked up his book.
>>63053261
>Kubrick
>piss poor reading comprehension
Fool of a Took.
>>63052135
This post really triggered me.
Well done.
>ITT people purposefully misinterpreting the film in order to convey their false superiority in the subject of film, when in fact they're actively being contrarians to compensate for their lack of knowledge in terms of film creation, history and comprehension
>>63057870
IIRC it wasn't included in American first prints but was always there in the original version of the book. They took it out of the first American versions because they didn't think Americans would like it.
