So why was this movie some type of dour noir, instead of a disgustingly hilarious pornographic comedy like the book? I mean I get it you're incorporating The Soft Machine and Ex-Terminator and all that, but no those books were way funnier and you didn't even touch on the whole language manipulation core theme. I don't know, I feel like people don't realize how fun and fucked up yet intelligent Burroughs' work actually is.
Because it was meant to be some fictionalized biographical thing about Burroughs more than an actual adaptation of his work.I agree, though, I don't think Cronenberg's and Burrough's interests overlap that much. Cronenberg's paranoid about technology, Burroughs was paranoid about language itself.
>>219017459>I meanWhy do zoomers post like this?
>>219017921sorry we're not spending all our time shidding and fardding over the Star Wars prequels like the dusty millennials
>>219017459is Burroughs actually worth reading or is it pseudo-intellectualism for art students?
>>219018451I got that pink omnibus that had, if I remember correctly, Junkie, Yage Letters, Naked Lunch and Nova Express in it. Read it when I was 14 or 15, something like that. A lot of it went over my head back then but yeah, it was a worthwhile read
>>219017459>Ex terminator That's actually the man who played the leading role of a cyborg garda in "Rob O'Copp"
>>219018576>For the Hitler Channel, I'm Pete R. Weller
>>219018451He's great, I like the one where Tarzan fights raptors in the center of the Earth.
>Reports indicate Cronenberg wanted to avoid scenes in restaurants and nightclubs, and intended to omit much of the book's graphic violence, notes SlashFilm a 2016 Rolling Stone interview with Ellis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZBDZOv4UnY
>>219017459It's not an adaptation of the book, it's about Burroughs getting over his repressed homosexulaity and murdering his wife
>>219019203the nighclub chapter is perhaps the worst part of the book
