Why is it impossible to make a good film adaptation of this?

pedos are scum, enjoying the sexiness of cute preteen girls is healthy and good.

the book was written in a radically different time. the contents just wouldnt translate well to film today.
>also, torture and gas the pedos

Just for that, you're next.

Because the book is already low-tier , badly-written shlock

>The book hinges on its unreliable narrator which is something that's hard to convey through a film adaptation.

>unreliable narrator

Only twats who have never read the book say this. Humbert may be giving a firsthand account but unless you're a pedo brainlet, you see through his shit to what an abject piece of shit he is without making any assumptions. Even if he is cleaning things up, the events as described are still horrific and twisted.

There is absolutely zero doubt or question as to who and what Humbert is or what he has done as "unreliable narration" isn't a part of the book, at all.

>Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
>She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

>badly written schlock

Fuck off, zoomer.

Based.

Jeremy Irons was solid and the loli was a cute.

CUTE!

Did /lit/ ever reach a consensus on whether Nabokov was a cunnyseur or not?

you should stick to reading dr seuss kiddo

>he thinks this is good literature
Holy mother of cringe . You need to read more books

>Because the book is already low-tier , badly-written shlock

>Nabokov
>badly-written

Wow, another illiterate in this thread.

>“You have to be an artist and a madman, a creature of infinite melancholy, with a bubble of hot poison in your loins and a super-voluptuous flame permanently aglow in your subtle spine (oh, how you have to cringe and hide!), in order to discern at once, by ineffable signs―the slightly feline outline of a cheekbone, the slenderness of a downy limbs, and other indices which despair and shame and tears of tenderness forbid me to tabulate―the little deadly demon among the wholesome children; she stands unrecognized by them and unconscious herself of her fantastic power.”

Oh please, it is.

If Lolita was a consenting adult everything would come off as a cheap romance novel.

>All at once we were madly, clumsily, shamelessly, agonizingly in love with each other; hopelessly, I should add, because that frenzy of mutual possession might have been assuaged only by our actually imbibing and assimilating every particle of each other's soul and flesh; but there we were, unable even to mate as slum children would have so easily found an opportunity to do so.
>By the way she's not an underage girl she's 22 and completely legal.

Lolita is not a pro-pedo book. It's a book where you (the reader) see the world through the eyes of a pedophile (Humbert) as he mistakes a preteen's first explorations of sexuality for full sexual maturity and proceeds to exploit her. You start to see the cracks in his narration during the second part of the book (when the mother is dead), when it becomes obvious that Dolores isn't very happy. The reality isn't revealed until the third part when you (the reader) discover that Dolores time with Humbert was psychological torture for her and she has been deeply psychologically damaged by it.
It's a clever book but it's hard to translate into a movie without turning it into a lurid sadist porn or into pedobait.

>if the premise was completely different, the book would be completely different
No shit?

Take your low IQ takes elsewhere.

>If Lolita was a consenting adult
The point of the book is that she isn't. She's underage and can't leave Humbert because she doesn't have a family.

If you pedos even THINK about touching a little girl, I will be there. And I won't WAIT for you literal pieces of shit to be gutted in prison. I'll cut out the middleman.

>The incel white knight fantasy VS the Chad intergenerational love

Nah. People who talk like that are always the biggest violators.

I'm saying people only like it because it's edgy and cool. Because it's taboo. It has no literary value.

I read it up to the part where he eventually fucks her, but the author just says "hehe it'll spoil the fun if I talk in depth about what happened hehe".
What a complete blue-ball waste of time. Humbert was straight up drugging her at one point too, I nearly stopped reading there.
This user understands 100%

Attached: 1540926260685.jpg (846x1200, 135.25K)

The funny think about pedos on this board talking about how Hollywood doesn't cater to them when the majority dislike these kind of filth.
Also has everyone forgotten about the embarrassing interview of the cast of Lamb (2015)

liking lgs throught your monitor BAD
gay trannies raping boys GOOD

Jesus Christ is it this bad?

Imagine being such a cuck you feel compelled to whiteknight on an indonesian soap opera forum for hypothetical victims of sexual assault

Attached: 7E2E0640-D0FD-4801-8929-866B26E47662.png (303x880, 15.63K)

>that bad faith rhetoric

Yes, because all child actors are shit

and you are a faggot nigger redditor, and your shit is all retarded

>If you pedos even THINK about touching a little girl, I will be there. And I won't WAIT for you literal pieces of shit to be gutted in prison. I'll cut out the middleman.

Attached: 1585915413684.jpg (708x800, 78.57K)

>that ad hom

Old roasties say no and hen peck their husbands to ban it

>being triggered by cunnyseurs on /tv

Attached: 1539928869342.png (715x218, 121.52K)

Kinda cringe ngl

>muh childerinos cant consentarino
they can and they do but only if your not fugly lmao

>being triggered when Hollywood doesn't make your pedo movies

>You start to see the cracks in his narration during the second part of the book (when the mother is dead), when it becomes obvious that Dolores isn't very happy. The reality isn't revealed until the third part when you (the reader) discover that Dolores time with Humbert was psychological torture for her and she has been deeply psychologically damaged by it.

Either you weren't paying attention, clearly not the case, or were charmed by Humbert, itself a huge red flag, if you couldn't tell until the end that Dolores was being tortured.

Well before the finale or the final third, there's a chapter in which Humbert beautifully describes lying to Dolores that he would give her money or take her somewhere for sexual favor, fucks her, then holds her and belly laughs as she fruitlessly struggles to get away and is distraught from discovering it was all for nothing. It was so vile I was shocked, and certainly before the supposed reveal so many people pretend is a part of the book. No, either you're charmed by an evil man bending over backward to cushion his confession and it took you by surprise that he's the worst, or you weren't and you saw it all unravel and reveal itself at the actual right parts.

Well before anything definitive is communicated or expressed from Dolores, before even the part I iust mentioned, Humbert reveals his growing suspicions and paranoias, then details the lengths he went to to keep Dolores utterly trapped at all hours, even if she was off on her own. For real, glaring red flags and sirens for anyone who thinks there is "unreliable narration." Nope, what happened is you got filtered and then publicly admitted to being an intellectually and morally compromised dimwit. You're basically like the simpletons you read about in psychological experiments who will basically commit random murder if someone in a white lab coat told you to push a button.

>being triggered when Hollywood does make them

because it's too redpilled. up until about 100 years ago hebe girls were widely and openly appreciated by the highest minds in society

i dont care about hollywood movies, they are rapist and murderers, and theres enough happy lgs on the interweb to see

@131996397
But they don't, do they? I mean look at Trouble With Being Born, it's getting negative rave and it's not released.

>because it's too redpilled
Have you ever actually read it? It isn't a pro-pedo book

>film board
>sliding out of the topic to seem """superior"""

>hear about the movie being made
>get triggered before its even released
wew dude you sure showed me

Couldn't depict the more controversial scenes.
So it would be censored adaptation.
Book isn't that great anyway, some evil dude abuses a kid, kid grows up to be messed up.

Where are you bro? I cant see you anywhere and this cuncun is about feel the greatest pleasure of her life

Brainlet take: this book is pro-pedo
Midwit take: Humbert is an unreliable narrator and his relationship with Dolores is abusive
Big brain take: this book is pro-pedo

Attached: 1299544326852.png (344x517, 53.36K)

>Also has everyone forgotten about the embarrassing interview of the cast of Lamb (2015)
What happened?

>calls himself a cunnyseur
>doesn't even know the state of the film

Attached: 1465987541004.gif (460x322, 460.36K)

these ''chads'' are 39 year old fat neckbeards who haven't showered in a week

Attached: 1579966641007.gif (728x408, 2.25M)

the moralfag got BTFO

Cause they won't go full XXX rating.

so much projection

Attached: 1542073248663.jpg (650x367, 35.72K)

Megumin is legal in europe why are you even posting her in a loli thread?

>g-guise you don't think he'll actually come get me right? I'm too soft and squishy to die.

Attached: 1585766776072.png (804x817, 665.23K)

There is one

Attached: file.png (533x700, 547.17K)

you are fine user, moralfags can only catch retards that fall for catfish