movies

[ghostrunner]

And more importantly, my biggest pet peeve- never compare the book to the movie or vice versa. Because: 1. You go in with a pre-concieved unfair notion of what the film HAS to be, which isn't fair to the film, and 2. They're different art forms, meant to be taken as they are and on their own merits.

I agree. I'm just making the comparison, cuz, well, it's Pynchon, I worship at the guy's feet.

33 - I agree that ideally Inherent Vice would've moved at a much more frenetic, off-the-wall pace.

In principle I agree about adaptations, but we're not talking about Grisham or Danielle Steele, we're talking about the Greatest Living Author and the first film adaptation of his work. Pynchon acolytes like me and TTM are expecting something that honors the tone, pace, sense of humor, structure* of a Pynchon book, and in Inherent Vice that is lacking.

I don't think the quality of the author has a lot to do with the principle. The problem is still your expectations. The filmmakers aren't obligated to provide a definitive or representative adaptation, just the one they want to make.

[Vidor]

I don't think the quality of the author has a lot to do with the principle. The problem is still your expectations. The filmmakers aren't obligated to provide a definitive or representative adaptation, just the one they want to make.

I'm going to see it this weekend. I've never read a Thomas Pynchon novel, and as a consequence I don't really give a crap how faithful it is to a book that I've never read and probably never will read. I agree with you that films should not be judged by how faithful they are to their source books, but independently.

[Jocephus]

you know what i enjoyed the movie? no reading

[ghostrunner]

I don't think the quality of the author has a lot to do with the principle. The problem is still your expectations. The filmmakers aren't obligated to provide a definitive or representative adaptation, just the one they want to make.

I'm going to see it this weekend. I've never read a Thomas Pynchon novel, and as a consequence I don't really give a crap how faithful it is to a book that I've never read and probably never will read. I agree with you that films should not be judged by how faithful they are to their source books, but independently.

I've tried twice. Bought V about 20 years ago and got 100 pages in or so. I don't know how to explain the fact that I really enjoyed his writing but eventually just lost interest. I keep thinking about giving it another go, but it's not likely to happen.

[heyzeus]

I don't think the quality of the author has a lot to do with the principle. The problem is still your expectations. The filmmakers aren't obligated to provide a definitive or representative adaptation, just the one they want to make.

I'm going to see it this weekend. I've never read a Thomas Pynchon novel, and as a consequence I don't really give a crap how faithful it is to a book that I've never read and probably never will read. I agree with you that films should not be judged by how faithful they are to their source books, but independently.

I've tried twice. Bought V about 20 years ago and got 100 pages in or so. I don't know how to explain the fact that I really enjoyed his writing but eventually just lost interest. I keep thinking about giving it another go, but it's not likely to happen.

Try the Crying of Lot 49. It's absurdist, humorous, and breezy/short.

[slide_into_first]

The best movie ever was "My Cousin Vinnie."

[Schlich]

that movie never gets any less funny that's for sure.

[Vidor]

Example of a film that was highly faithful to a novel that wasn't very good, and turned out to be an awesome movie:

"Psycho". Pretty much the only difference is that Norman is fat and middle-aged, and Marion ("Mary") gets her head cut off.

[33anda3rd]

The best movie ever was "My Cousin Vinnie."

Mmmmmmmmmmm Marisa Tomei.

[ghostrunner]

Example of a film that was highly faithful to a novel that wasn't very good, and turned out to be an awesome movie:

"Psycho". Pretty much the only difference is that Norman is fat and middle-aged, and Marion ("Mary") gets her head cut off.

I've never understood why people like it so much. One of my least favorite Hitchcock movies. Don't care about the Janet Leigh character, then suddenly we switch protagonists, or maybe Norman was the protagonist in which case I still don't care. Everything with Martin Balsam is dull. Great music, great camera work, but otherwise doesn't work for me.

Lots of good movies from supposedly bad books though - Godfather, Jaws, The Shining