Chit-Chat: EVAN PETERS HAVE MY BABIES

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shining Raichu said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Shining Raichu said:
YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM ALL. YOU DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM ALL.
Click to expand...
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
 
Mr Cat Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Negima just finished,
Spoiler:
 
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.
 
Scarf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Shining Raichu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could you give some examples of some more 'modern' films that are "good" and "good for its time"? To me, quality is absolute, so it'd be interesting to hear some debates on this. :D
 
Well I can give you examples of films that are "good" - but whether they are good in absolute quality or merely good for their time remains to be seen. After all, if the movies are modern we still are in their time and only time will tell.

Though it is an interesting debate - take for example my "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" example. That might have been a groundbreaking and scandalous thing to say in its time, but in a modern setting where culture has changed so drastically, it is kind of lame. That's why it bugs me so much when people set it on a pedestal among the absolute greatest lines ever. When you consider all the movies and all the lines that have happened since then, it doesn't even rate in the top 100.
 
OK, let's reverse it then. Can you give some examples of 'good' films that were made before 1990? (As opposed to 'good for their time' films.)
 
Mr Cat Dog said:
OK, let's reverse it then. Can you give some examples of 'good' films that were made before 1990? (As opposed to 'good for their time' films.)
Click to expand...
I guess "good" rather than "good for their time" would imply some degree of last-ability?

And prior to 1990? Like... everything from the decade prior XD Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, E.T., Back to the Future. Lots.
 
Shining Raichu said:
Well I can give you examples of films that are "good" - but whether they are good in absolute quality or merely good for their time remains to be seen. After all, if the movies are modern we still are in their time and only time will tell.

Though it is an interesting debate - take for example my "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" example. That might have been a groundbreaking and scandalous thing to say in its time, but in a modern setting where culture has changed so drastically, it is kind of lame. That's why it bugs me so much when people set it on a pedestal among the absolute greatest lines ever. When you consider all the movies and all the lines that have happened since then, it doesn't even rate in the top 100.
Click to expand...

I don't know, it might just be that I love Gone with The Wind more than any other film, but that line is still quite badass to me. Well, badass isn't really the right word, but you understand what I mean, yes? I'd be horrified to hear that the person I wanted most in the word said that they didn't give a damn about me.
 
Mr Cat Dog said:
OK, let's reverse it then. Can you give some examples of 'good' films that were made before 1990? (As opposed to 'good for their time' films.)
Click to expand...
Brazil is a good film, I think, as are other Terry Gilliam films like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. And the Monty Python movies, of course. People can, and do, still quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail and get laughs.

There's also Jaws, Diabolique, and lots of Hitchcock's films which will keep you in genuine suspense. Then there are old movies that you think will be throwaway, typical films from their time which manage to surprise you. That happened when I watched The Teahouse of the August Moon which was rather good (even if it did have Marlon Brando in yellowface). Not great, but still good.
 
Scarf said:
Brazil is a good film, I think, as are other Terry Gilliam films like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. And the Monty Python movies, of course. People can, and do, still quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail and get laughs.

There's also Jaws, Diabolique, and lots of Hitchcock's films which will keep you in genuine suspense. Then there are old movies that you think will be throwaway, typical films from their time which manage to surprise you. That happened when I watched The Teahouse of the August Moon which was rather good (even if it did have Marlon Brando in yellowface). Not great, but still good.
Click to expand...
Brazil was good. It has its merits. Dunno if I'd watch it repeatedly.

I really did not enjoy Munchausen though. Might have had a different effect if I knew the source material.
 
Ergh I have been so damn busy these last few days. Kramer vs Kramer was the example that immediately sprang to mind (I finally saw it the other day, after buying the DVD months ago and it was fantastic) and the only other one I can think of is Shirley Valentine which is not something I think anybody would have heard of.

I don't really watch movies from pre-1990 lol.
 
I think good for their time films are things that were influential and popular at the time, but now just aren't as enjoyable. Films like Casablanca and Gone With the Wind will always be timelessly enjoyable. What always springs to mind for me is Citizen Kane, influential yes, but it is just not enjoyable at all and I would definitely not watch it again. I'm always disappointed when it tops "best of all time" lists, or if modern film makers cite it as an influence. It was influential for years afterwards yes, but still? It's like how every single band in the world say they were influenced by The Beatles just for the sake of it.

Things like Psycho or And Then There Were None as well I think, would have been scary at the time, now they're more like an unintentional comedy.
 
Scarf said:
Brazil is a good film, I think, as are other Terry Gilliam films like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. And the Monty Python movies, of course. People can, and do, still quote Monty Python and the Holy Grail and get laughs.
Click to expand...
I'm not a massive Python fan, but I absolutely love Brazil. So madcap and witty and it goes against everything one would expect in a futuristic sci-fi movie with its art direction. It's been a while since I've seen it, but it has a special place in my heart.

Scarf said:
There's also Jaws, Diabolique, and lots of Hitchcock's films which will keep you in genuine suspense. Then there are old movies that you think will be throwaway, typical films from their time which manage to surprise you. That happened when I watched The Teahouse of the August Moon which was rather good (even if it did have Marlon Brando in yellowface). Not great, but still good.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean about 'throwaway' films from a bygone era. For me, the best example of that would be something like Holiday from 1940. Despite being light and frothy when watching, it has a real staying power that lingers long after one has ejected the DVD from the computer (in my case, at least...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top