A Clockwork Orange - What's the Difference?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 січ 2017
- Stanley Kubrick's film isn't as faithful to Anthony Burgess' novel as we first thought. Here are some of the major adaptation differences between the book and movie.
More episodes:
• What's the Difference?
Subscribe for new episodes:
goo.gl/9AGRm
Follow us Twitter:
/ cinefixnetwork
Oh, and we're on the Facebook:
/ cinefixnetwork
More Recent CineFix Videos:
Most Anticipated Movies of 2017 - Trailer Mix
• Most Anticipated Movie...
Indiana Jones as a Bourne Movie - Trailer Mix
• Indiana Jones as a Bou...
7 Things You (Probably) Didn't Know About Mad Max: Fury Road!
• 7 Things You (Probably...
5 Best End Credits of All Time
• 5 Best End Credits of ...
Honey, I Blew Up the Kid as a Godzilla Movie - Trailer Mix
• Honey, I Blew Up the K...
Captain America: Civil War - Homemade Shot for Shot
• Captain America: Civil...
The Top 15 BEST Movies of 2016! - CineFix Staff Picks
• Top 15 Movies of 2016!...
Make Your Own Captain America Costume - DIY Costume Squad
• Make Captain America's...
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - CineFix Roundtable
• Rogue One: A Star Wars...
Home Alone - 8 Bit Cinema
• Home Alone - 8 Bit Cinema - Розваги
Book Alex is also only 15 years old as opposed to the film's suggested age of 17 or 18
SolarDragon007 and I'm pretty sure it ends with him being 21, not 18 like video says. That's why there is 21 chapters because it's considered an important age in culture.
The book clearly mentions him being fifteen when he gets arrested, and eighteen in the final chapter.
The book ends while he is eighteen, like Francesco said, but it is true that the number of chapters symbolize the "important age"
Hi did make it 21 chapters to represent the age of becoming an adult.
669 likes lol
Clockwork orange is its own special type of disturbing
like antichrist?
It's not Georgie he meets up with at the end of the book; it's Pete
Yes, two points they missed were Georgie's death and the fact that he listens to more than just Ludvig Van in the book. Also, it wasn't the 9th that was played.
Josh Rivera Also, it was all music that upset him after the experiment. And that the real reason they killed the cell mate was because he was a pedophile that took a fancy to Alex.
Josh Rivera Yes, Georgie tries to burgal a house but the owner was home and hit him in the back of the head with a copper pipe.
Another point that's missing is the part when Alex enters the music store after finishing the Ludovik treatment and says he wants to listen to Mozart's 40th symphonie, but the employee puts The Prague instead, which makes him feel angry and sickened.
Also, they didn't mention how Dim and Billyboy rape Alex
A fun thing, that the dialect is just plain English with some Russian words blended in. In the Russian adaptation of the book they decided to adapt this dialect by not adapting it. So it's basically in Russian, but the slang words (which are basically Russian) are written in Latin letters as opposed to the rest of the text, which is all in Cyrillic.
The book and film play in the world with strong Russian cultural influence, similarly to the worldwide English cultural influence of our real world. The Russian words are adapted into English slang, so they're not Russian, but English slang words invented by Burgess, based on Russian expressions.
Viddy well little brothers, viddy well
eleven38 A real horrorshow ain't it?
Amen, and all that cal.
I read this just as Alex said it at the end of the video.
eleven38
Don't mock me, cheena...
eleven38
A bit of the old in out in out
Time for a bit of the old ultra violence
trueharm - I prefer a bit of the old in-out, in-out.
Viddy Well, Little Brother. Viddy Well
No time for the old in and out. I've just come to read the meter
trueharm the good ole in and out
trueharm 100th like
Alex DeLarge... easily one of the best characters ever written and played
Actually his name is spelt Alex DeLARGE every letter is in all caps not just the L
We don't know that's his name in the book, we don't find out his surname at all. This comes from the aforementioned paedophile rape scene, where he says, after a shot of "growling jungle-cat secretion", "This time they thought nothing fun and stopped creeching with wild mirth" (he's got them both dosed up with Scotch) "and had to submit to the strange and weird desires of Alex the Large..."
Obviously he's talking about a mountainous erection brought about by the "jungle-cat secretion". But the book never gives him a surname. Only the film does that. Although I love the film also, that "Alex DeLarge" bit does make me cringe just a little.
But Malcolm McDowell, IMO, brightened every film or TV show I've seen him in, in my opinion: _If, O Lucky Man (supposedly a_ Clockwork Orange _sequel), Lexx, Robot Chicken, Blue Thunder, South Park, Fantasy Island,..._ He's done a ton of video game voices as well. A real talent.
@@Dragonblaster1 yes we've never read his surname, I've read the book several times
But that's what we all accepted his name was after the movies decided to call him that
DanKorCZ I’m only addressing people who have only seen the film and not the book. But the book IMO is canon.
@@Dragonblaster1 oh yeah, I know, I get you, just wanted to put 2 cents into the argument haha
A Clock Work Orange is a crazy film.
Watch The Holy Mountain, then we'll talk crazy.
Jesse Lapham - Great film!
If you want a truly crazy experience I recommend "The city of women" by Federico Fellini.
Jonas Rosenven Looks somewhat interesting, I think I'll have to actually give it a watch to see what you mean by "crazy experience", however.
Jesse Lapham Don't watch it with kids in the room or parents lol
Saw this when i was 10... Confusing and Disturbing was how I would describe it
Scott Coleman yes I was about 10/11 when I saw it, I was more into trying to figure the language out.
Somemong thanks for writing 3 separate comments 41 year old
I was like 4 when I first seen the film, i walk in on my uncle who was watching it. I had absolutely know idea what was going on.
+Tim
Ever considered that English might not be their first language? Maybe it is but if not then you look a hell of a lot more ignorant than they do.
Tim Harrison The dialect is called "Nadsat" ("Teenager" in Russian".) Its vocabulary is mostly Anglicized Russian (because of the future triumph of World Socialism) and odd bits of rhyming slang and other associations.
You forgot that Georgie died in the book. In the movie, Georgie and Dim beat up Alex as police officers. In the book it's Dim and Billy-boy.
Also, Alex doesn't find Georgie in the bar at the end, it's Pete.
also, dim and billy-boy have their way with alex in the book. the way its described it hints at rape. in the movie he gets beat up and drowned.
RedBaron1892 i just finished the book and thought the same cause i think it mentioned they had to pull back up there trousers and then alex was fagged and shagged.
I jusy got a spoiler fròm the book you globby bottle of cheap stinking chip oil
@@ohshait175 shoulda given a good ole viddy at the proper biblio then. It's a real horrorshow, my brother.
Also the fact that F Alexander in the movie seems to have a male lover in the movie but in the book he’s just alone and it’s not mentioned at all of him seeing anyone else but it really didn’t change considering the lover in the movie didn’t do much and I think he only spoke like once and that’s it
At 1:20, although it's pure gang violence, it's a kind of dark mercy that Alex's distracting introduction allowed the assaulted girl to escape the gang rape. Of course, Alex really did that to piss off Billy Boy, as like making Billy lose his delicious dinner. Alex did save the girl by stepping in to interrupt, but that was not truly his intention.
In the book Alex and his gang end up rapping the girl themselves and what’s worse is she ten years old like the two girls at the record store.
garganrose
No, they don't? I don't remember anything about them raping the girl, didn't she just run away and call the cops?
Failed Abortion are you sure? I was listening to the audio book a little while ago and I could’ve sworn that’s what happened. But she was ten in the book like the two girls at the record store.
garganrose
I've just reread that part and after the fight Alex and his gang just steal a car from a cinema and drive away to the "HOME", where the next rape scene happens (but with a woman, not a girl)
I never remember them "rapping" a girl, though I would like to see a Clockwork Orange rap battle.
No time for the old "in & out," Love...I've just come to read the meter..
Oh darn!
Isn't Alex 15 in the book? It always felt weird to me that he and the Droogs clearly look like they're in their 20s and they'd be attending the equivalent of high school.
He is, and the youngest of the gang.
Alex was changed to 17 in the movie, but what you're saying is still true.
that doesnt matter as audience still convinced, choosing actual teen to act in hollywood would end like Twilight movies.
The actor who played Pete was 16 or 17 at the time but other were in their mid 20nies.
He's 15 in Part 1 (which details his young violent life) and Part 2 (during corrections and all the way until two years later when he gets out), and 17 or 18 in Part 3 (his life and misery after being released).
They are both masterpieces! Both the book and Kubrick's rendition!
Tomás Jarsun truth
very true
Masterpi*
***** Are you saying A Clockwork Orange is unwatchable?
He said it was "almost unwatchable". I'm saying it's unwatchable. I made it through once, for a friend; and I wouldn't again. I agree with Katoki.
"Book Alex" looks like Matt Damon and Heath Ledger had a love child.
Yeah its because, he's going to be in the reboot
You just turned my stomach :-Z
@@warreng675 Ewwwww
@@warreng675 fr?
My main problem with the movie is that Malcolm McDowell was 28, and looked it, when he played the role of Alex, who is supposed to be 15. Don't get me wrong, I think Malcolm did a phenomenal job and really brought the character to life, I mean his version of Alex is iconic, but seeing an actual child doing those things would have been a lot more jarring and disturbing. The fact that Alex is just a kid is what made a Clockwork Orange so haunting to me. I understand why adults are often cast to play characters much younger than themselves, but it's still always a little disappointing in cases like these, where if the character had looked as young as they're supposed to be, it would have packed more of a punch.
I'd say he'd pass for a 17-18 years old at most... but yeah, he can't pass for a pre-teen/teen like the Book Alex... though I found BOTH Alexes to be horrifying people...
I don't think his age is meant to be the same in the movie. I think he is supposed to be around 18 as opposed to the younger 15 year old in the book, and it's due to Malcolm's appearance and what you mentioned with seeing a child doing all that stuff being too disturbing for audiences at the time.
@@comradeelmo5739 No reall
15 years old isn't a little kid
Most teens starts puberty in this age
he passes as 17-18, i doubt they could even cast someone who looked 15, too controversial, more than it already was
Kubrick himself stated he wished to get a Malcom McDowell had been closer to 17, but that he was perfect for the part so he decided to go ahead (also Alex's age in the film is changed to 17 at the beginning and 19 after the time skip as to avoid more controversy)
In the book he kills the cat lady with a Bust of Beethoven rather than a giant phallus.
But in the film, she uses the bust of Beethoven to clock Alex in the head, and so that's why he conks her with it; but it kills her.
Wym bust of Beethoven
Gerson847 like a head statue
I figured that's why he kept one in his cell. It reminded him of the good ole ultra violence
@@uuncoolguy6 No brother, he's just a fan of the old Ludwig Van
Stand by me next? Or any other king short stories would be cool.
Alt Pupil, The Shawshank Redemption, The Mist.... gasp! The Dark Tower when it comes out later in 2017.
Dr.Decker apt pupil would be amazing. For me the green mile and shawshank redemption would be for this series because they actually follow pretty close to the books. IT would be a good one I think because there are some huge changes (for good reasons) that would make for a good 1 or 2 episodes of this
Dr.Decker There's very little difference between The Body and Stand By Me. I would still love Cinefix to do a video on it, though.
Thatoneguy7272 The mini-series of IT was such a disappointment, though. The only change that was made for the better was leaving the sex out lol
07foxmulder that's why I said other short stories. Maybe a longer episode on like 3 king short stories
Pretty rare to see a book have a happier ending than a movie.
One of the most interesting things I noticed in the book is that Mr. Alexander (the writer) and his friends were planning on getting Alex to kill himself from the minute he got there. The plan was already going when Mr. Alexander realized that Alex was the leader of the gang who had attacked him two years earlier. So it was completely irrelevant to the story that they had the previous encounter and Mr. Alexander figured that out. I like it better in the movie where it implies that the main reason they tried to get Alex to kill himself was revenge for the attack on the writer on his wife.
I disagree, in the movie the writer's friend were merely trying to prove the Ludivigo technique 6e was real and Alex wasn't disembling. It is not like they left any knives or blades in that sealed room.
I've been waiting 2 years for this
I feel your struggle bruh.
......does Alex look like Matt Damon in the book...
I've read the book and watched the movie and i absolutely love both. I know there were alot of differences but i thought they were both fantastic. It would be interesting to see a movie made (only if its as good as the 1st) with the differences from the book added into it
Also, the Droogs DO have cod-pieces in the book. In fact, strangely enough, each droog has different looking a cod-piece. Alex's looks like a spider, Dim's looks like a clown face, and either Pete or Georgie have one shaped like a flower.
American censor logic:
Violence = Fine
Killing = Fine
Childrape = Fine
Character decides to grow up and stop doing bad stuff = Well this will simply not fly with an american audience!
Censorship has nothing to do with it. The reason it was taken out was purely because the film took it out.
Oh if you only did som research or a simple google-search before you commented.
"At the American publisher's insistence, Burgess allowed their editors to cut the redeeming final chapter from the U.S. version, so that the tale would end on a darker note, with Alex succumbing to his violent, reckless nature-an ending which the publisher insisted would be "more realistic" and appealing to a U.S. audience. The film adaptation, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is based on the American edition of the book"
-Wikipedia
NostalgiNorden Well, the child rape wasn't included in the film and the growing up thing just want included because that part of the book wasn't released until later.
Please read before commenting. It will save you alot of time
NostalgiNorden it's funny because originally they took that final chapter out because it was for pussy Europeans who need a happy ending while americans had experiences the shit of Vietnam (editor words) and understood the true nature of humans. You figure it would be the other way around
I'm singing in the Rain! What a glorious feeling!
one of the best and hardest books ive ever read
Man, you know what's insidious about Burgess's writing? I only read the book in High School (many years ago) and haven't seen the film for at least a decade, and I STILL understood everything Clint and the new guy were saying in Nadsat.
Real horrorshow
@Jason Blalock Thou has kupeeted real horrorshow, oh my malenky droogie. I'm 57 years old and first read the book when I was 18, and I recently got a copy without a cribsheet on it from Kindle. OK, it helped a little that I did take Russian at O-level (British basic school qualification), so most of the words were recognisable. But I understood all of them nearly 40 years later. I think this is a major result of the effect the book had on me, first as an out-and-out dystopian fantasy and it's deeper role as a philosophical work.
I suspect Anthony Burgess recognised how the supposedly all-conquering British Empire had brought back so very many Hindi words and ideas to the UK (curry, bungalow, pyjamas, jungle, chutney, veranda, bandana, chit, shampoo...) without even noticing. And that the British Empire had done the same in India (English is one of the two official languages of India, the other being Hindi). So maybe relentless Soviet propaganda might have had a similar effect.
I watched the movie before reading the book, so that extra chapter and thematic difference totally blew me away. Watching the movie actually enhances the experience of reading the book!
Omg in the book the girls were ten!!
I know I'm like a year late but he also does like crack before doing it aswell.
@@hunterp913 like 3 months late but its worth a mention that in the book while the girls are 10 hes 15. rape is still bad but age wise worse has been done
Hol up nigha
Alex's discontent for Dim in the book was much more key. Also the masks they wore for the robberies played more into their characters. Also their emblams were on their cod pieces and not cuffs.
Please do George Orwells 1984 next, great movie and great book
Yes! Great idea, John Hurt is one of my favourite actors.
Hey, i have read 1984, but I cant find any book like that.( I have read the books animal farm and brave new world btw) if u could, can u suggest me a book?
The 1956 version with Edmund O'brien was the best!
Yevgeny Zamayatin's WE, from 1928 was better
1984 is double plus good
Do the god forsaken diary of a wimpy kid movies
NorthernMonkey the books are decent for such a gay genre
lol yes that would be hilarious
Do it for the meme!
The books are actually pretty enjoyable.
The movies are absolute dog shit.
Bill Carrig and playing a 12 year old. Who's character was terrible and a completely unessesary addition.
I think I prefer the ending in the book, and its overall themes.
Me to. The book has clear conclusion and message while the film is just like hanging up
I felt the film message is much stronger. The ending didn't really leave anything hanging, it just showed that Alex hasn't changed and he'll always be what he is. I like the book end, but it felt to far fetch to believe Alex would grow out of what he is, as a large portion of Alex's life is just a allegory for male youth. Sex,violence, arrogance and wild behavior.
The publishers made the author include it as a sort of "Happy Conclusion" despite the fact he felt it was completely out of character and I agree
@@mafiablokes Wrong. Burgess had intended the book to end with Alex pondering reformation from the beginning. He wanted to show that even someone like Alex was capable of change if allowed to do so in their own time and not forced to (Ludovico's technique). Clockwork Orange is a coming of age story and without the 21st chapter, Alex's character arc is left incomplete. Burgess was deeply dissatisfied with the chapter's omission from the American edition and the film adaptation. And later printings of the book featured an afterword in which Burgess elaborated on his displeasure with the final chapter's omission. Get your facts straight.
I think there was an agenda by not having the right ending. It gave the impression that some horrible person can get away with anything I'm the long run.
that opening monologue was so bad i loved it.... one other difference you left out is that in the book Alex is only 15. this is an important piece because its explains his sometimes child-like behavior (eating tons of sweets) and also makes the distopian world he lives in even more dystopian. having a 15-year-old sociopath beating, killing and raping adults changes the readers view of the whole story.
They imply hes 15 in the movie or that hes atleast supposed to be attending school
RIGHT he's a school boy
Yeah I realized that at times he's really naive like back at the hospital where they inject him with the stuff
It's about fucking time you made this fucking video.
i love this movie so much, i just read the book this week and i have to say the book is a lot easier to read than you would think, the nadsat isn’t all that hard to figure out, and the book hooks you very well and its easy to picture everything that happens in the story in your mind, real horrorshow story if i do say so
There were a few more things. Alex wasn't given a surname in the novel, and proclaims himself "Alex the large" in the book when he is raping the girls, which is why the movie gave him the surname "Delarge", although the news montage at the end calls him "Burgess". Also, there is a particually strange dream sequence cut from the film where Alex dreams an odd fantasy of playing a concert in front of a whole house full of Ludwig Van Beethovens. It is made even more odd because the instrument he is playing is a trumpet coming right out of his chest, and when he blows on it, it makes him laugh because the end of the trumpet is blowing on his belly, making it tickle. Also in the book, he is not just conditioned against the 9th Synphony, but all music in general, and at one point contemplates suicide by taking 100 aspirin tablets. There is also no discription whatsoever of the milkbar, no female statues with milk squirting out of their breasts.
cool - good bits , good knowledge .Thank you can we say , Masterpiece ?! These two guys can learn from you !
I've been waiting for this episode for a while. Good job, as always.
ive been waiting so long for this!!
Love the video!!! I always need more book-related Clockwork Orange content in my life! I feel like the book ties together the themes and morals so much better. The film, even though it was admittedly a work of art in its own right, felt like a shocking thriller instead of a psychological analysis.
i think it was you guys who pointed out the subtlety of kubrik's work in this scene where the author recognizes who alex because of the song. How alex would tap the bathtub like he tapped on the night of the crime. so good
Ooh, it's one of those times when I just so happened to have watched scenes from this movie over and over for two days, just before this video came up. Always a fun feeling!
been waiting for this one for a while thanks for the upload amigo
There were a surprising amount of errors in this video: they seemed to have switched two of the droogs' names, because Alex meets up with Pete in the last chapter, and Georgie died while Alex was in prison, this being the reason Billy Boy was the other officer in the book and not Georgie, who lives in the movie. Less importantly (although still quite important), they use Otto Skadelig's Symphony No. 3 to torture Alex in the book instead of Beethoven's 9th, because in the book Alex listens to Plautus, Mozart, and Bach. The obsession with Beethoven's 9th is only in the movie, and is one of its most iconic aspects. It's at least worth noting
One of the last scenes, in which Alex is seen having sex with a woman in what looks to be a wedding setting, with the woman taking the dominant position, seems to correlate with the 21st chapter though. Even though Kubrick supposedly never heard of the 21st chapter until after the movie was made.
I think you might be right.
Well he did find out about chapter near the end of production, but stated he certainly wouldn't have used it regardless.
Excellent analysis. I saw the movie before I read the book and I only read the book once decades ago so I had forgotten some of the differences. I do remember the last chapter although it was years after I read the US version of the book that I read the last chapter. It was printed in Rolling Stone in 1987.
This has inspired me to read the book again. And then watch the movie again.
Literally just a small error; Alex ends up running into Pete before contemplating his life. Georgie was killed shortly after Alex is sent to prison during a botched burglary. Anyway, viddy well o' my brothers
I could have sworn you'd already made this
Install a Friend mandela effect
Install a Friend: Very probably, you're remembering this other Cinefix video from 2015 that also discusses this film:
ua-cam.com/video/gURvaXEsN-k/v-deo.html
One of my favorite films. I tried to read the novel back in high school but struggled a lot with the Nadsat. Good video :)
I really love the film and book. Was so excited to see you guys talk about them. And I personally love the language.
Love your videos! I remember in the commentary on this film it was said how in the last chapter Alex decides to hang it up and make a change, where as the American copy excluded it.
On a separate note, would love to see a What's the Difference on 1984 book and movie.
Stanley Kubrick actually remained more respectful to Anthony Burgess by taking that last chapter out. The book was submitted to publishers without it, but they thought it was too short. So, only then did Burgess add the last chapter upon request. Therefore, the movie does remain more close to Burgess' original vision in that sense, at least.
In most of What's The Difference the film is much better.
So, in case the book is better?
I personally felt Watchmen, Kickass, and Jurassic Park were all better as books. Can't say much for the rest since I either haven't read or haven't watched them.
In this case I've liked both the book and the movie a lot. The movie makes a lot of changes mainly to make the story better fit on screen (the most significant difference is the age of the characters), and that's why the film works as a film and the book works as a book.
Not possible except for when it's a graphic novel.Kyononnon 'why did Gmail screw me over?'
point taken, as they normally can be adapted into screenplays pretty easy, and thus can be just base-way good.
OK I WASN'T EXPECTING THE GIRLS DIFFERENCE
Could you make an episode on The neverending story or blade runner/do androids dream of electric sheep?
Volvagia´s Blaze The Neverending Story, I 2nd this!
Volvagia´s Blaze Ridley Scott hasn't read Do androids dream....
At least i heard about it.
yeah, but he didn´t write the script, he only directed, so it´s really not important whether or not he read it
I love this movie, and book. Although I've read it a couple times over already. There's a lot to miss, and some really subtle details contribute greatly to the story.
Well, at the very least I finally understand what the phrase "A Clockwork Orange" means.
Best "whats the difference" I've seen so far. loved it.
My all time favorite movie!
Awesome book and a masterpiece movie from Kubrick. Malcolm Mcdowell should’ve won an oscar for this role
FINALLY A clockwork orange. i've been waiting for this ages.
dustin! I love you! I hella miss you fan diys, awesome to hear ya!
0:01 when the Emoji Movie comes on and remote is nowhere to be found
Ultra violence means rape in the book while ultra violence means.... ultra violence in the movie
Muhammad Pope I could've sworn that Ultraviolence, in the book, menth both rape and...well, violence.
Violence that is ultra... The best kind yes
One of David Bowies' last songs "Girl Loves me" is sung entirely in nadsat.
The silk kimono he wore in 1972 was based on a clockwork orange and the song surfraget city
One of the funny thing about Alex started to grow up on the novel version near the ending is that he no longer interested in beethoven and some sort of classical music rather than he choose to listen to a modern, simpler and mellow music.
You missed two things. First, there's a sequence in the book where Andy temporarily has a cellmate who is constantly complaining about a draft in the cell. Had it been kept in, it would've given away the end. Second, Red's speech at the end at his parole session wasn't created for the movie. It did happen in the book and the dialogue is almost word for word, but it's the intro to the short story instead of being a scene at the end.
Hey guys, I have a suggestion for a new What's the Difference that I think is timely considering this book is now a selling like hotcakes, George Orwell’s 1984
If not 1984 maybe Fahrenheit 451 sticking with the dystopian theme
Where is the what's the difference for Game of thrones ????
Brandon Anderson its actualy not that diferent from the books until season 5
lolsquad There are actually a few differences that are worth mentioning such as new sub plots and additional scenes that gives the characters more dimension. But when The Winds of Winter comes out, that would probably be more than enough motivation to do a what's the difference, or maybe after the entire book series has ended.
I love the book and show, but one thing with the tv series that kind of disappoints me is they did not include Lady Stoneheart. I'm still hoping, though.
Look up Preston Jacobs of you want the differences from show and book. He goes super in depth and even n covers some of the writers other books that have similar traits.
+Baby Wolf 42
~...or maybe when the entire book series has ended.~
Which is like saying, 'when Hell freezes over' or 'when pigs fly.' Just two days ago I heard Martin say WoW may not (read probably not) even be released in 2017, and it's looking like it won't be. If you're betting he'll live long enough to complete 'A Dream of Spring,' you might as well keep dreaming of it yourself. I thought the showrunners cut things from the source material in order to make room for the events in the future novels. Sheesh, was I ever that naive?
GRRM is the most constipated writer I've ever come across in my lifetime of compulsive reading. Not saying the book series is bad, not at all, but what was supposed to be a trilogy has now spanned five books out of seven planned. As for the remaining two, one he can't get to the publisher in over six years and another he hasn't even started yet but plans to maybe write some other stuff relating to Westeros (pre-GOT) even *before* sitting down at his gosh dang desk and finishing the only thing out of all he's ever written (including that Twilight Zone episode) for which he'll be remembered.
ASOIAF is GRRM's magnum opus yet he doesn't seem to give a crap about it and can't even be bothered to finish it. It's blatant middle finger to his fans. I'll finish up the show but I'll be danged if I'll read any more books in the series until they are completely finished. By that time I'll probably be a grandmother, perhaps even a great grandmother at the rate he's putting out those books, or rather NOT putting them out. IDK, maybe it's because he's wiping his butt with the piles of cash he's made from a currently unfinished project. Had I known he was slower than molasses, I would not have read the books at all.
A brilliant piece of work!
I've been waiting for this! I just re-read the book not so long ago and the differences are immediate but did not detract from the overall adaptation. Kubrick always had his own vision when it came to screenplays, especially The Shining. He wanted to discuss the plight of the Native American People, that's why you see a lot of Native Peoples imagery in that film.
My choices for a new What's the Difference would be Dreamcatcher by Stephen King, The Lone Wolf and Cub saga, or Stardust by Neil Gaiman.
FUCK I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS FOR YEARS
Frederick Core me too
Any chance we could get a what's the difference that covers A Series of Unfortunate Events, covering the books, movie, and Netflix show?
how has starship troopers not made this list. please your killing me!
very good and intriguing facts about a clockwork orange and hope you guys do Carrie soon
The Force Awakens and A New Hope: What's the difference?
Jake G 2187 They only do it with adaptations and the books or graphic novel they're based on.
Jake G 2187 that's better.
40 years
There's no difference
Luke Skywalker's a girl in TFA....
It's been years since I read the book, so please correct me if I'm wrong. It wasn't Alex's old druggies Dim and Georgie that pick him up as police officers, it was Dim and the former leader of a rival gang. Georgie was more ambitious and it was his ambition that led to him being killed during a robbery. Also it is implied the cops rape him during the assault. Also, as opposed to the "sucker punch" style assault Alex launches on his droogs, in the book he fights both of them one on one in a weapons fight and wins.
THIS IS THE EPISODE I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!!!!
Here's one difference from the book that I perceive as existing, but most don't see or disagree with. Although in the book it is obvious that Alex continues being evil even in prison, I have always thought that in the movie Kubrick intended to imply that Alex had undergone a self transformation into a better man. In the movie he is completely and utterly defeated in prison, we never see him kill anyone, we never even see him do so much as talk back to a guard. He has clearly been talking to the chaplin a lot, reading the bible a lot, and has been very orderly, he is even helping out with the church service, during which we see a man blow kissy faces at him, which is either meant to imply that Alex had been raped by that man, or is being called a kiss-up or both. All of these things always seemed strange and out of character to me, the Alex we are introduced to wouldn't allow people to walk all over him like that, he wouldn't take the time to read the bible and talk to the Chaplain if he was still evil, so my thought is that he has truly reformed and is a good person who actually believes in the Christian teachings. If this is true, it better explains why he asks for the ludovico in the first place, because the entire first act of the film shows Alex truly happy and at peace while he is gallivanting around being ultra-violent, which would contradict the idea that he would have what truly brings him joy surgically removed. People's response to this theory is typically that it can't be that way because of the biblical fantasy scenes, but in my opinion that is an example of him being an unreliable narrator. In the time he is narrating he has already been through the entire process and is evil again, so he would not want to admit to any time that he may have actually reformed, we even hear him at other times in the movie putting his own spin on events we are shown to support his violent ways and make himself seem like a better(from his POV) person.
Along with this evidence, the idea that he reformed in prison, in my opinion, changes his character arc for the better. In the movie as most people see it, he goes from evil by choice to forced good to evil by choice again, which gives a bleaker look at things, implying those who are bad cannot become good no matter what. His character arc as I see it is that he goes from bad by choice to good by choice to good by force to bad by choice. Which has much different implications on free will and human nature, this gives the idea that people given the opportunity can reform, but only with the freedom to do it themselves, because any disruption to a man's ability to chose will not only be unsuccessful, but will also result in the subject rebelling against the desired effect. This is also a better critique of the system, showing that some prisoners would be safe to leave but can't because of the fucked up system.
Honestly, in the movie, I thought he was laying low in prison, masking his actual nature. Even when he was free, Alex knew how to hide and be vague about his activities and he would have gotten with killing that old woman had his droogies not betrayed him...
Jesus Christ right a book man. These are supposed to be comments not novels
alliesmomsvagina There’s no limit to talking about something?
@@alliesmomsvagina Better idea: you read a book and learn how to spell "write".
A Clockwork Orange is one of my favourite books of all time.
The movie is pretty dope, but not as great and meaningful as the original story. The story has a rather different focus.
I agree completely
Definitely
I'm singing in rain! Just singin in the rain!
I'm so happy I asked for them to do this so many times
good. you guys are still doing these
I like the last chapter. is not certain he'll be a better person but there's hope. it seems to be so true that often teenagers will be too wild but when they get a little older the wild ones start becoming really responsible.
Also, in the book (if i remember rigth) after he gets out of jail he goes to the library where the man he beat up in the first chapter sees him, and whit help of other old mans and librarians team up and beat Alex
Great review, love this movie!
My suggestion, along with other people who wanted this, has finally come true! :D
I guess that.. The diference is basiclly that Kubrick tells the story in a Nietzsche perspective, because Kubrick uses some messeges under the lines to show that Alex was abused by his mother.
The book is told from e Feudian perspective, it`s organized as the process of becaming an adult. One chapter for each year, do Alex is exploring the world accordingly to his wishes a baby`s mentality 0 to 7 years. Than society imposes it`s values and they rebel against the family values 7 - 14.
In the last part 14 to 21 he finds the balance between his most animal side and it`s racional side.
I still remember the first time I saw this movie
Fact: Aside from being one of the greatest directors, Kubrick is also one of the best screenwriters. He's probably my favourite after FF Coppola.
Loved this video! It's a really faithful adaptation, but that 21st chapter changes the whole meaning like you mention. I also think the 21st chapter signifies the coming of age and leaving behind "childish" ways.
wait in the 21st chapter he decided to grow up, which means exparament worked. just took a little time.
I love Dustin, Always a pleasure to see his choices in the round tables but for me at least What's The Difference, Thrives off of the dynamics between Dustin & Clint: They're a comedic duo, and it's not the same anymore. Not that I don't enjoy learning what's the difference But the comedy (and the visuals) elevated it from a list of facts
Thank you. How many times I have argued the missing chapters existence I have lost count. I read the American publishers requested the chapter be removed.
love your videos. could you do Transporting Film vs Book? xx
I wore out a copy of ACO on DVD years ago. This movie is a real horror show. ❤
Just watched Clockwork Orange last night what a coincidence!
Hey what about the fact that the whole Singing in the Rain thing when he is attacking the writer and his wife? That was a major thing in the film and did not appear in the book at all.
It was kind of improvised by Malcom McDowell because he knew the song by heart.
Hold on, I swear codpieces were mentioned in the book. I distinctly remember when reading it a few years ago that each droog had a codpiece, but each one was different and in the shape of something. For example, one of them had a codpiece in the shape of a spider (which would be amazing to see, not necessarily easy to make). I was studying 16th century fashion at the time so this stuck out to me. Am I completely out of touch here?
Otherwise, this was amazing! Thank you so much! You explained that final chapter so perfectly. Now when I try to explain it to people, I'll just send them this video. :)
I have water for this for SOOO long WOOO finally