Apolcalyps Now ripoff...
Except for the ending this pic is like a total ripoff of Apolcalyps now!
shareExcept for the ending this pic is like a total ripoff of Apolcalyps now!
sharewell genius, considering this story of first written in 1899, I would say that it predates 'apocalypse now' by many decades.
shareapocalypse now is based on heart of darkness... take your head out of your ass... read... don't talk *beep*
share[deleted]
@ricky----K4: You are correct.
shareHere is "Wikipedia" on "Apocalypse Now":
"Today, the movie is widely regarded by many as a masterpiece of the New Hollywood era, and is frequently cited as one of the greatest films of all time."
And here are my observations:
What the author of the entry in "Wikipedia" says may be true, but "Heart of Darkness"--which to my shock is not credited as a source for the Francis Ford Coppola film--will long outlast ANY film based on it. Literature is a far superior medium to film. Joseph Conrad's novel is one of the great works of Western literature.
" Literature is a far superior medium to film."
No, it isn't.
@ by Siamois (Mon Oct 22 2012 10:49:17)
YES IT IS, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO ADDUCE THE REASONS FOR MY ORIGINAL REMARK.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT I FIRST READ THE NOVEL "HEART OF DARKNESS" AS A FRESHMAN IN COLLEGE, THAT I HAVE BEEN A UNIVERSITY LITERATURE PROFESSOR FOR DECADES, AND THAT I HAVE TAUGHT CONRAD'S NOVEL TO STUDENTS WHO LIKED & UNDERSTOOD IT.
I've read HEART OF DARKNESS and I have to tell ya, it stinks.
shareThere's no way you're a university professor. No way, when you're making remarks like ''literature is a far superior medium to film.''
Calling any form of art objectively superior to any other is absolutely ridiculous. Comics, books, film, music, video games; they're all unique ways of telling a story, but no one is inherently more important or intelligent than the other.
Saying that books are somehow more important than film (why, by the way?), shows a patent misunderstanding of the cultural relevance and histories of both film and literature. Honestly, I seriously doubt that you even have a bachelor's in English lit, let alone have taught for decades.
If you are genuinely a university literature professor, then I'm shocked and appalled that you were ever hired. Your entire posting history is awkwardly worded empty statements and misinformed platitudes, written in this obtuse i'm-way-more-intelligent-than-you kind of way. You write like a self important teenager, who thinks a holier-than-thou attitude puts them above other people.
There's a post where you tell a dude he didn't enjoy Moby Dick because he didn't ''read it intelligently,'' as if enjoying or not enjoying a book is a measure of someone's intelligence. How condescending can you be? Very. Apparently.
I'm glad that no literature professor I've ever dealt with has been anything like you.
There's no way you're a university professor. No way, when you're making remarks like ''literature is a far superior medium to film.''
In addition to the comments above, for craps sake either learn to spell or type properly.
shareWell, maybe if the original poster had taken the time to read Heart of Darkness, his or her spelling would be a bit better.
shareOr, to look at it the other way, if the OP's spelling (metonymic for his/her general linguistic skill) was better, he/she may have been capable of reading Heart of Darkness.
share
Er, stumbleuponster, not to be a pain in the arse.... but the proper verb in your post should have been "were," as it is a conditional statement ("If I were a rich man..."). Your use of "the" in "the other way" is not accurate, either, as it implies only the single alternative exists. "Another way" would have been better.
You got me on "metonymic," though. I'll have to go look that one up. :-)
Actually, rhustox, I'm sure the proper use is "was", since "were" refers to plural objects, as in "We were English majors", as opposed to "We was English majors". You wouldn't say "I were a rich man", since the primary noun is not plural.
I realize that this is the 21st century and anything goes these days, but there are little things people can do to ensure that the English language is still something to be used properly, not treated like a five-year-old still learning syntax and grammar.
On that note, what's with people saying "IMHO" when the very act of expressing an opinion is a refudiation of being humble? Now THAT bugs me. Sheesh, people, stop attempting to be witty and just make your point.
Not so. "were" is quite certainly the correct form for third person singular in the subjunctive tense. As Rhustox tried to express by calling this a "conditional usage," this is most certainly an example of the subjunctive.
I find it ironic that you are not familiar with the now less popular but no less "proper" subjunctive given that you appeal to the supposedly glorious past of former forms of English. Your choice of example may be even more ironic though, as "If I Were a Rich Man" is in fact the title of well-known show tune.
That's not even getting into your odd belief that anyone expressing an opinion forfeits her humility in so doing.
@ by davoshannon (Sun Jul 12 2009 13:19:28)
For crap's sake, please learn to use apostrophes correctly.
You are right,with a twist, "Apocalypse Now" was considerably based on Conrad's famous short story "Heart of Darkness" published in 1902 (by the way not in the 1800's). Conrad-was a Pole born inside the Russian Empire. English was not his native language but he had perfect command of it and wrote all his literary work in that language. Another work of Conrad's was made into a movie starring Peter O'Toole in "Lord Jim", Oops, you claimed "Heart of Darkness was a "rip-off" from "Apocalypse Now". Clearly you thought wrong!
share@politicon2003 on Fri Apr 23 2010
"Heart of Darkness" was published in book form during 1902, but it had been serialised in the 1890s. Here is Wikipedia:
"Heart of Darkness is a novella written by Joseph Conrad. Before its 1902 publication, it appeared as a three-part series (1899) in Blackwood's Magazine."
@ by politicon2003 (Fri Apr 23 2010 11:14:12)
1-Conrad's famous work is a short novel, not a "short story."
2-It was serialised in the late nineteenth century and published in book form during 1902.
An excellent spoof thread rparks-5; zap 'em wid your siren man!
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.