Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I've always thought that if you can't keep the movie close to the book, you shouldn't make the movie. That's one of my personal pet peeves, something I know alot of people don't mind as much. It just seems that quite a few of Kubrick's well known movies are based on books, and he seems to have little regard for what the author's vision is.
|
I'd say you're talking out your ass here.
Nabokov wrote the screenplay for Lolita. I don't know what you mean by saying it didn't have the same "tone."
When the film version of A Clockwork Orange came out, very few editions contained the final chapter. The film is very close to the book.
Arthur C. Clark and Kubrick wrote the script for 2001. The novel wasnt even published until after the movie was made.
Schnitzler is one of my favorite authors, but I haven't read Traumnovelle. Eyes Wide Shut was never intended as a direct adaptation anyhow.
Why he didn't realize that killing the black guy first is a serious horror film cliche, I don't know. But aside from that, the script for the Shining is vastly superior to the novel. I think King is just kind of jealous that he couldn't write anything that good. Why Kubrick didn't remove King's "ancient Indian burial ground" hokiness, I don't know.
I don't agree with your criteria, that films need to be true word for word to books they're based on. And I also don't agree that Kubrick had a problem with this. He was much truer to his sources than most directors.
This poll is incomplete, it lacks choices for The Killing, Paths of Glory, and Spartacus as well as his earlier films.