Why, of course you can repeat the past... (GE DCC)

[Mr Cat Dog]

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

The second film wasn't that bad. Granted it was not as good as the first, but it was not a bad film in the slightest.

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason was an abortion of a film.

[Scarf]

Ugh. Hate those movies. Not only do they contain some very irritating actors, they are just cheap imitations of Jane Austen novels. Which is doubly bad because not only are they cheap knock offs, they decided to knock off the stories that have been copied to death.

[Shining Raichu]

You are very negative people

The movies were amazing and the books were even better. Your taste in everything has seriously been brought into question tbh!

[Mr Cat Dog]

The first film is, honest to god, one of my all-time favourite films. It's not perfect by any means, but it has a wondrously lived-in performance of an often flawed protagonist by Renee Zelwegger, a decidedly fresh take on the romcom genre of films, and lines that are so good that there's rarely a day that goes by in which I don't quote some of them.

The second film decided to take a huge, massive dump on all that made the first film so good. Bridget has turned from independent-woman into whiny, petulant girlfriend, the plot is so by the numbers one could predict its ending about five minutes in (and yet still has a ridiculous trip to Thailand), and the technical areas of the film from the piddly direction to the maudlin cinematography to the shoe-horned in Hugh Grant appearance are all just horrible. Honestly? Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason is just as bad as Bridget Jones's Diary is good.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

You are very negative people :(

The movies were amazing and the books were even better. Your taste in everything has seriously been brought into question tbh!

I should also mention that I really don't like Jane Austen novels in the first place. I could go on. :D Let's see... I think the Harry Potter books are just okay. Buffy was never that great of a TV show. Quentin Tarantino is a hack. The Lord of the Rings movies are just boring. Johnny Depp has forgotten how to act.

Help me out here. I need more suggestions of things people love that I can trample all over.

[Shining Raichu]

Originally Posted by Mr Cat Dog

the plot is so by the numbers one could predict its ending about five minutes in

This happens all the time, but I've never understood it. Why do people trash the plot of a movie that was based on a book? If you have an issue with the plot, it isn't the fault of the film, but the source material.

Originally Posted by Scarf

I should also mention that I really don't like Jane Austen novels in the first place. I could go on. :D Let's see... I think the Harry Potter books are just okay. Buffy was never that great of a TV show. Quentin Tarantino is a hack. The Lord of the Rings movies are just boring. Johnny Depp has forgotten how to act.

Jane Austen novels are terrible and while tragic to her family, it was a saving grace on the public and future public that she passed away as young as she did. I also agree about Lord of the Rings and Johnny Depp

But if you ever come near my Harry Potter or my Buffy, I will destroy you.

[Harlequin]

Just jumping in here, anything Joss Whedon has ever had a hand in making is boring and only successful because of her crazy fanbase who love the even crazier plotlines of those shows. Thank you, bye!

[Shining Raichu]

Why is everybody ganging up on me? What did I do wrong...

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Harlequin

Just jumping in here, anything Joss Whedon has ever had a hand in making is boring and only successful because of her crazy fanbase who love the even crazier plotlines of those shows. Thank you, bye!

When did Joss become a lady?

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

Jane Austen novels are terrible and while tragic to her family, it was a saving grace on the public and future public that she passed away as young as she did.

I wish I had the nerve to say things like that. I take back everything I said about Harry Potter and Buffy.

Originally Posted by Harlequin

Just jumping in here, anything Joss Whedon has ever had a hand in making is boring and only successful because of her crazy fanbase who love the even crazier plotlines of those shows. Thank you, bye!

I wanted to say that, but I do like Firefly and I begrudgingly like Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

Also, as a followup to my whining about Sheauwn of the Dead, it wasn't bad when I didn't have to look away. Funny even, at times. I might have enjoyed it more if I didn't have to keep closing my eyes. I'd definitely see those other movies they did whose names escape me at the moment.

[Rest]

Originally Posted by Scarf

The Lord of the Rings movies are just boring.

That ghost-overkill scene in the last one just killed it for me in it's entirety as a film.

First two were okay though, but I see why people would get bored over it (Frodo-Sam-Gollum scenes especially, I reckon).

White Chicks, anyone?

EDIT: I see a dark side to Shining Raichu?!

[Vendak]

Don't worry Raichu, I like Buffy. Although I haven't seen it since I was about 14.

LOTR IS AMAZING I ACCEPT NO CRITICISM OF IT.

I'd definitely see those other movies they did whose names escape me at the moment.

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg. Their TV series Spaced is way better than any movies they've been in.

My unpopular opinion: Inception sucks.

[Mr Cat Dog]

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

This happens all the time, but I've never understood it. Why do people trash the plot of a movie that was based on a book? If you have an issue with the plot, it isn't the fault of the film, but the source material.

With a book of questionable literary value gets adapted to the screen, it can still become a very good film. Take The Godfather, for instance. As a book, it's a fairly unremarkable genre exercise; as a film, the script takes liberties with some of the events and characters, and the visual template that Coppola gives to it elevates it from mere pulp to high art. With Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (and unlike Bridget Jones's Diary), the writers and director manages to gut the book - which is actually quite good - completely of what made it entertaining, selecting only the drabbest bits and then getting the cast and crew to make as drab a film as possible out of them.

So... yeah. I really really really dislike it when people say "It's the book's fault if a film is bad." For a really amazing film out of a not-so-great book: see Psycho or Adaptation. For a terrible film out of a good book, see most of the versions of A Christmas Carol (except the Muppet one) and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.

To deal with everything else: I like Jane Austen novels but I can understand why people don't; the Harry Potter series is very much in the realm of 'okay'; can't comment on Buffy having only seen half of one episode; Tarantino is a self-diagnosed thief, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he's a 'hack'; LOTR: first one's good, second one's forgettable, third one NEVER ENDS; OMG yes Johnny Depp HAS forgotten how to act for most of the last decade; meow, Andrew, you have the claws out today!; that mention of White Chicks had better be one of 'OMG I sooooo totally hate White Chicks' or GTFO of my forum; and while I don't think Inception 'sucks', I do think it is very overrated.

Phew! Any more entertainment sacred cows we want to turn into sacred beefburgers?

[Rest]

Relax, hun. I was just pouring oil into the fire. White Chicks was horribly racist (there was this one line where they were talking about belly piercings... that was just utterly disgusting).

You scare me, Cat, but I still love you. D:

[Harlequin]

Originally Posted by Rest

Relax, hun. I was just pouring oil into the fire. :P White Chicks was horribly racist (there was this one line where they were talking about belly piercings... that was just utterly disgusting).

WHITE CHICKS REDEEMED ITSELF WITH THE THOUSAND MILES SING-A-LONG THANK YOU BYE

[Shining Raichu]

Originally Posted by Mr Cat Dog

With a book of questionable literary value gets adapted to the screen, it can still become a very good film. Take The Godfather, for instance. As a book, it's a fairly unremarkable genre exercise; as a film, the script takes liberties with some of the events and characters, and the visual template that Coppola gives to it elevates it from mere pulp to high art. With Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (and unlike Bridget Jones's Diary), the writers and director manages to gut the book - which is actually quite good - completely of what made it entertaining, selecting only the drabbest bits and then getting the cast and crew to make as drab a film as possible out of them.

So... yeah. I really really really dislike it when people say "It's the book's fault if a film is bad." For a really amazing film out of a not-so-great book: see Psycho or Adaptation. For a terrible film out of a good book, see most of the versions of A Christmas Carol (except the Muppet one) and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.

My objection to what you were saying dealt with the plot specifically lol. I'm not saying it's a book's fault if the movie is bad (which I still don't agree is the case with Bridget Jones 2), merely that the plot is taken directly from the book and therefore any issues with the storyline itself do speak to the book rather the film.

the Harry Potter series is very much in the realm of 'okay'

YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM ALL. YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM ALL.

Originally Posted by Vendak

Don't worry Raichu, I like Buffy. Although I haven't seen it since I was about 14.

You just earned 57 bro points. I'll have to tell Razor Leaf to adjust the score board.

----

Also lol, what did I say that's making everybody go "whoa Raichu has a dark side"? Was it the Jane Austen thing? Cos like... death is terrible, but I do believe in the greater good...

[Mr Cat Dog]

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

My objection to what you were saying dealt with the plot specifically lol. I'm not saying it's a book's fault if the movie is bad (which I still don't agree is the case with Bridget Jones 2), merely that the plot is taken directly from the book and therefore any issues with the storyline itself do speak to the book rather the film.

And it THAT attitude that severely pisses me off. A good film is one that doesn't simply rest on its laurels and copy-and-pastes the plot of a book directly. If a film has a bad plot and it happens to be based off a book, then one can say that the book's plot is bad AND the film's plot is bad because the writer didn't see fit to change or adapt it when writing the script.

As well as this, I liked the book of Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason! That didn't stop me from hating the film. :D

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM ALL. YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM ALL.

Oh, I was just talking about the books. Can't comment upon the films as, like you say, I DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM ALL.

In other news, who wants to come up with a new title for the DCC? I'm liking this OC-DCC-esque thing of changing the title in line with the changing conversation. :D

[Shining Raichu]

Originally Posted by Mr Cat Dog

And it THAT attitude that severely pisses me off. A good film is one that doesn't simply rest on its laurels and copy-and-pastes the plot of a book directly. If a film has a bad plot and it happens to be based off a book, then one can say that the book's plot is bad AND the film's plot is bad because the writer didn't see fit to change or adapt it when writing the script.

I'm sorry, sometimes the truth pisses people off! If you're adapting a book to film, some details may change to be more film-friendly but the core plot remains the same. If it doesn't, it's not a true adaptation of the source material.

[Scarf]

Ah, the semantics of what makes a movie a real adaptation or just a movie that happens to have the same title and characters with the same name. I think it all comes down to whether the movie has that thing that makes the book what it is, whatever it is.

And Cat, you can't pick a name, the name must spring up naturally.

[Mr Cat Dog]

Maybe I'm unusual in this, but I'd much rather have a 'worse' adaptation of a book if it ends up being a better film than a more 'faithful' adaptation of a book if it results in a worse film. Like The Godfather, for example. So many liberties taken with that book, and yet I really do love the film. But, like I say, maybe that's just me. :D

[Harlequin]

To be honest, I was never really that fond of The Godfather. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it and I understand why it is so revered and loved, but I don't know...it just didn't click with me? Like, even though she didn't have that much of a role in the film, Diane Keaton annoyed the hell out of me.

[Scarf]

I feel that way about a lot of movies that everyone likes. I can understand how they're good movies and all, but some things just rub me the wrong way.

Like all this Hunger Games movie stuff all over the place is bugging me because I don't like the person they chose for Katniss. Something about her face just bothers me and I know that's gonna be in my mind the whole time I see the movie.

[digi-kun]

Negima just finished,

Spoiler:

looks like Akamatsu decided to not canon who Negi ended up getting with, also probably a wise choice, though afterstory on Negi would have been nice, even if it was eluded to in the previous chapter.

[Shining Raichu]

Ugh I'm that way too - I really have this irrational dislike for the "classics" because I've seen parts of them (and even whole movies) and they're just really not that great. People revere them as the greatest movies of all time, "The Golden Age of Cinema" but tbh I think we're in the golden age now. Like, the shower scene from Psycho or that movie that ends with that guy saying "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn," resulting in the entire audience jizzing their pants as though that is the greatest call in the history of everything (WHEN IT'S NOT EVEN THAT GOOD OF A ****ING LINE DAMN IT). They're just really not that great... and yet because they're old pioneer films that contributed to history they're still today seen as the best, no matter how many films in the intervening fifty years have far surpassed them in quality.

I think there's a difference between "good" and "good for its time", and very few people seem to be able to make that distinction.

[Mew~]

Originally Posted by Scarf

Like all this Hunger Games movie stuff all over the place is bugging me because I don't like the person they chose for Katniss. Something about her face just bothers me and I know that's gonna be in my mind the whole time I see the movie.

I honestly didn't mind Jennifer that much, the only problem I see is that she looks a lot older, and then you've got Josh Hutcherson who looks like a 14 year old. Still, I'm looking forward to it. I'll be buying tickets for the advanced screenings on the 22nd, as I'm going with a few friends. :)