15435 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I liked A Clockwork Orange, and I understood why I liked it. That kid who was the protagonist was a punk with little self awareness. He was a product of his environment with no emotional or ethical ambiguities dogging him.
I didn't get a sense that his environment caused Malcom McDowell's character to do what he did. In other films about gangs, that seems to be their central thesis, but A Clockwork Orange seemed more like a violent farce/comedy. I found it to be uncomfortable viewing. I didn't think the point was convincing, if the point was to show that you can't make people good or bad against their will, because that would be against god's will.
I went to see, This Must be the Place, with Sean Penn. I liked it. A movie about a 50 year old Goth, writes itself!
I've heard of that film. Thanks!
I didn't get a sense that his environment caused Malcom McDowell's character to do what he did.
I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think his behavior was caused by his environment. I think he thrived in his environment.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification:)
Very good LisaV. I agree, the truest type of change is internal; anything else is superficial and often an imitation of change.
Thanks Lisa, for the information!
I just finished watching Anna Karenina (1935). I read the book a year or two ago. The plot of the movie was enormously simplified and omitted a lot of information regarding the character's motivations. I didn't find Vronsky, played by Frederic March, very sympathetic. Basil Rathbone and Greta Garbo gave pretty good performances, though. Overall, I though the plot wasn't complex enough.
Isn't that with basically every book to movie adaptation?
No, there are quite a few movies I can think of where this wasn't the case. LoTR, for example, captured the plot of the books much better than I expected. And think of the Twilight series. There wasn't much to start with in the books, but the movies were pretty literal translations.
I guess it depends on the book. Tolstoy has such in-depth characterization. However, I've still seen very good movie versions of his books. War and Peace with Henry Fonda comes to mind.
I only watched LoTR movies and didn't read the books. I got a fairly strong sense that I was missing a lot. I wished I had read the books before watching the movies because they seemed that they were made for people who have read the books. The plot seemed all there but the character development was lacking and things didn't seem explained fully. Someone who had read the books would not have those issues.
I avoided the Twilight series completely and believe I am better off for it.
Books generally rely a lot on the inner narrative of the main character which is something that is often non transferrable in movie format especially with the time restriction. The importance of the inner narrative in the book and how well those ideas are put in the movie probably has a lot to do with how well it transfers.
Thanks, corrijean! I also liked the Greta Garbo version of Anna Karenina, and War and Peace!
On another note, I'm sorry you both read the Twilight series and saw the movies. This could be evidence that you're quite insane
Perhaps I just transferred the characterization in my own mind since I was already very familiar with the books. I've read them not just once, but 5-10 times, I'd guess.
I highly recommend reading them. If you want an easy start, you can always start with The Hobbit.It is fairly self contained, so if you decide not to read the others, you will still get a complete story. And it is pretty short. The prose is easy to read, not overly dense. And it is an excellent adventure story. It draws heavily on Anglo Saxon mythology. I've had an interest in many types of mythology since I read the Odyssey in sixth grade, so it really appealed to me.
I like to keep up with pop culture, and someone gave me the first book. It was such light reading, it didn't take me long.
I've only seen two of the movies. They weren't very good.
So I hear the vampire was hundreds of years old. Yet, he still went to highschool, possibly only to pick up young girls. Gross.
Yes, the story is gross. You can definitely tell it was written by a sexually repressed Mormon.
The overwhelming impression from the story is sexually repressed teen angst.
Sexual repression is the leading cause of teenagers.
And yet you still watched two movies.
Steinitz vs Morphy
by socialista a few minutes ago
Something is wrong...
by omnipaul a few minutes ago
Nimzowitsch's Defense answer to d4 d5 Nc3
by aww-rats a few minutes ago
[HURT HEAL] Queen Pawn Openings w/o 1...d5
by 11qq11 2 minutes ago
Bobby Fischer: a phenomenal role model in youth
by TheGrobe 4 minutes ago
Daily Puzzle Queen Sacrifice Log
by Addicted-to-Chess97 4 minutes ago
Candidate games Anand Vs Aronian
by Abhishek29 4 minutes ago
Is this position legal?
by Irontiger 4 minutes ago
[HURT HEAL] OPENINGS
by 11qq11 4 minutes ago
Graph got stretched out
by RonaldJosephCote 5 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!