Hannibal
Correspondent:: "fenian d'illudium q-36, Rlari."
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:29:55 -0400
--------
IMBJR done brut Hannibal to mind....
Potential spoiler:
What d'yall think of the Movie / Book and the differences therein? I love
the Hannibal character. He has a different quality between the book and the
movies ... the book paints him as not exactly monstrous in nature. I haven't
read either of the other two books yet, just Hannibal, the last one. The
movie ending was a total cop-out. Why NOT have Clarice realize cannibalism
isn't really THAT bad, and eat the brain of her asshole boss with some nice
brioche crumbs? Although, in the movie's favour, it was visually appealing
with some really cool music.
Correspondent:: "Rev. Ivan Stang"
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:43:28 -0400
--------
In article <8jZ7d.23$bR6.695@news20.bellglobal.com>, fenian d'illudium
q-36, Rlari. wrote:
> IMBJR done brut Hannibal to mind....
>
> Potential spoiler:
>
> What d'yall think of the Movie / Book and the differences therein? I love
> the Hannibal character. He has a different quality between the book and the
> movies ... the book paints him as not exactly monstrous in nature. I haven't
> read either of the other two books yet, just Hannibal, the last one. The
> movie ending was a total cop-out. Why NOT have Clarice realize cannibalism
> isn't really THAT bad, and eat the brain of her asshole boss with some nice
> brioche crumbs? Although, in the movie's favour, it was visually appealing
> with some really cool music.
>
>
Books and movies are such different animals that it's practically a
pointless comparison.
It's also matter of taste and literacy. People who read whole books are
pretty rare these days to begin with.
Personally, I know I saw ONE MOVIE that I liked better than the book it
was made from... but I'll be damned if I can remember which one it was,
so probably neither the book or the movie were that good.
On the other hand, there are movies that can't be made into books
because they depend so heavily on the movie medium itself -- my beloved
"Memento" might be an example, although Disney's "Fantasia" would be a
much better one.
Many times I've seen a movie that I thought was really powerful, so I
read the book, and in so doing RUINED the movie. "Little Big Man" was
one -- the movie was pretty good! But Thomas Berger's novel was so
infinitely much better that the movie looks like a humorless child's
coloring book by comparison afterwards.
I would fucking HATE to see most of my fave novels turned into movies.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Just think how they'd fuck THAT up. Imagine
"Autumn of the Patriarch" as a fucking HBO miniseries. I want to jump
off a bridge just thinking about it.
When you make a movie of a book you HAVE to fuck it up BECAUSE A MOVIE
CAN ONLY BE A COUPLE OF HOURS LONG. Any plot or character nuance that's
NOT SO SIMPLE A RETARD COULD GET IT has to be changed because there's
simply not time to go into it.
Also, almost everyone deeply involved in Hollywood film production is
an asshole by definition, and often they completely alter the entire
POINT and MORAL of a book for NO OTHER REASON WHATSOEVER than THAT THEY
CAN. The disembowelment of HG Wells' "The Time Machine" by HIS OWN
NEUROTIC, WEAK-KNEED GRANDSON (working for Disney) is an example which
creeps me out very deeply.
This is as true of comic books as of words-only books.
I have in my closet the unfilmed script by Sam Hamm for Moore's "The
Watchmen."
THOSE WHO LOVE "THE WATCHMEN," GET DOWN ON YOUR KNEES RIGHT THIS MINUTE
AND THANK ALL THE GODS IN ALL THE HEAVENS THAT HOLLYWOOD NEVER MADE
THAT MOVIE. And let us pray that they leave V for Vendetta alone too.
--
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc.
(4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected, Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com
For SubGenius Biz & Orders: call toll free to 1-888-669-2323
or email: jesus@subgenius.com
PRABOB
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:21:00 -0700
--------
Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
> People who read whole books are
> pretty rare these days to begin with.
>
I suspect that a wide majority of the population
have either some degree of dyslexia, or come from
a family that does not encourage reading because
one or both parents have dyslexia.
In addition to that, people tend to be divided by
how easily they can learn and use abstracts. The
comparison is those who learn music "by ear" vs.
those who can read musical notation. Written
characters are essentially abstracts, so many of
those who could hear and comprehend have difficulty
reading and comprehending the same thing.
This explains why teaching reading phonetically is
far more effective than is "parts of speech" teaching.
ADD ON TO THAT those with limited vocabularies, who
are discouraged by writing that is too complex, and
the gazillion other eccentricities of the English
language, to include archaic words and usages, and
you end up with only a tiny percentage of the
population that can effectively read.
And an even small group that can read and wants to
read.
Now torment *them* with writing that is 99% crapola,
fluff and bulldada.
--
Yah-hah, evil spider woman! I have captured you
by the short rabbits and can now deliver you
violently to your gynecologist for a thorough
extermination.
-- Hong Kong movie subtitle
Correspondent:: "ArWeGod"
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:34:34 GMT
--------
"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote in message
news:041020041043287838%stang@subgeniusNOSPUM.com...
> Personally, I know I saw ONE MOVIE that I liked better than the book
it
> was made from... but I'll be damned if I can remember which one it
was,
> so probably neither the book or the movie were that good.
They're OK if you see the movie first, then read to book. Sometimes.
> On the other hand, there are movies that can't be made into books
> because they depend so heavily on the movie medium itself -- my
beloved
> "Memento" might be an example, although Disney's "Fantasia" would be a
> much better one.
Dune. And they had Frank on the set as a consultant! What was with that
voice-gun thing...?
--
ArWeWormdust
Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:02:42 -0700
--------
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:34:34 GMT, "ArWeGod"
wrote:
>"Rev. Ivan Stang" wrote in message
>news:041020041043287838%stang@subgeniusNOSPUM.com...
>> Personally, I know I saw ONE MOVIE that I liked better than the book
>it
>> was made from... but I'll be damned if I can remember which one it
>was,
>> so probably neither the book or the movie were that good.
>
>They're OK if you see the movie first, then read to book. Sometimes.
>
>> On the other hand, there are movies that can't be made into books
>> because they depend so heavily on the movie medium itself -- my
>beloved
>> "Memento" might be an example, although Disney's "Fantasia" would be a
>> much better one.
>
>Dune. And they had Frank on the set as a consultant! What was with that
>voice-gun thing...?
I never read the book, but I thought the movie might have been OK if
they hadn't tried to get it in two hours.
ArWeDavidLynchApologists
--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
It's OK though guys. "Bob" still loves you. "Bob" loves us all.
"Bob" is open minded. "Bob" thinks that watching a bulldog run full
force into the bumper of a volkswagen and knock itself unconscious is
FUNNY.
Correspondent:: Vaylor Trucks
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 12:47:37 -0400
--------
Rev. Ivan Stang wrote:
>
> Personally, I know I saw ONE MOVIE that I liked better than the book it
> was made from... but I'll be damned if I can remember which one it was,
> so probably neither the book or the movie were that good.
>
In discussions like this I always like to bring up the works of Stanley
Kubrik. "2001: A Space Odyssey" (best movie ever), for example, was
based upon a short story by Arthur C. Clarke. The short story is
excellent and the movie is excellent, but for very different reasons.
Asking which is better - "The Sentinel" to "2001" - would be like asking
who is better - Ravi Shankar or Cal Ripkin, Jr. They live in different
realms, follow different rules, and, often, evoke very different
responses (this is especially true for "The Shining"). Nearly all of
Kubrik's movies are based upon very good books ("Lolita", "A Clockwork
Orange", and "Full Metal Jacket" - based on "The Short Timers", etc.)
but his films are great for entirely different reasons than the books
they are based on.
Correspondent:: nikolai kingsley
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:34:35 +1000
--------
> Books and movies are such different animals that it's practically a
> pointless comparison.
>
> It's also matter of taste and literacy. People who read whole books are
> pretty rare these days to begin with.
if you compare the film "Hellraiser" with the novella it was based on,
"The Hellbound Heart", it's amazing how close the one follows the other,
because Clive Barker made the film. in a recent interview, he admits
he had a lot of high-class help; "with the help I had, Helen Keller
could have made a good film."
Correspondent:: Hugh Ristic
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:57:54 +0100
--------
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:29:55 -0400, "fenian d'illudium q-36,
Rlari." wrote:
>IMBJR done brut Hannibal to mind....
>
>Potential spoiler:
>
>What d'yall think of the Movie / Book and the differences therein? I love
>the Hannibal character. He has a different quality between the book and the
>movies ... the book paints him as not exactly monstrous in nature. I haven't
>read either of the other two books yet, just Hannibal, the last one. The
>movie ending was a total cop-out. Why NOT have Clarice realize cannibalism
>isn't really THAT bad, and eat the brain of her asshole boss with some nice
>brioche crumbs? Although, in the movie's favour, it was visually appealing
>with some really cool music.
>
In a particularly horrifying scene, Lecter captures Paul Krendler
at his home and lobotomises him while still awake. Krendler is
fed parts of his own brain. Lecter again escapes and leaves the
country.
Correspondent:: "Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello"
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:47:24 GMT
--------
"Hugh Ristic" wrote in message
news:b9aom012jqknjijo7njjbm7m6boeoou7h1@4ax.com...
>
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 16:29:55 -0400, "fenian d'illudium q-36,
> Rlari." wrote:
>
>>IMBJR done brut Hannibal to mind....
>>
>>Potential spoiler:
>>
>>What d'yall think of the Movie / Book and the differences therein? I love
>>the Hannibal character. He has a different quality between the book and
>>the
>>movies ... the book paints him as not exactly monstrous in nature. I
>>haven't
>>read either of the other two books yet, just Hannibal, the last one. The
>>movie ending was a total cop-out. Why NOT have Clarice realize cannibalism
>>isn't really THAT bad, and eat the brain of her asshole boss with some
>>nice
>>brioche crumbs? Although, in the movie's favour, it was visually appealing
>>with some really cool music.
>>
> In a particularly horrifying scene, Lecter captures Paul Krendler
> at his home and lobotomises him while still awake. Krendler is
> fed parts of his own brain. Lecter again escapes and leaves the
> country.
That's the coolest scene of any movie/film ever made.
Especially when Maestro Hannibal Lector gives the kid sitting next to him on
the plane a bite of his lunch.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/fish/gracie_1.html?sect=1