|
Post by spiritmage234 on Feb 21, 2007 8:43:16 GMT -5
I HATED RENT!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by appacatbus on Feb 21, 2007 23:20:41 GMT -5
Nope, as i am exposed to more and more good movies, and have a better understanding of wuality film and writing, they get worse. why do hate them so dang much? please elaborate. PLEASE. I see Wizard of Oz as a little kid. Its pretty good, Witch is scary, singing yay, not the most memorable experiance, but enjoyable. I see it later, after knowing the difference between a good movie and a bad movie, Wizard of Oz is slightly less apealing. I see it much later, having seen great movies, Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, Miyazaki, etc. Now i see that the Wizard of Oz really doesnt have much going for it. i see it again, now I am more critical of movies and books, I used to see a bad movie and not care. Now I do, and now I really dont like the Wizard of Oz.
|
|
|
Post by splendoris on Feb 21, 2007 23:29:25 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if you like any movies at all that were made before... I dunno, 1960?
|
|
|
Post by appacatbus on Feb 22, 2007 0:04:08 GMT -5
I'm just wondering if you like any movies at all that were made before... I dunno, 1960? Dr. Strangelove and To Kill a Mockingbird.
|
|
Growly
DOBS Katara
The Jester of Multishipping
The Mod behind the Myth
Posts: 6,059
|
Post by Growly on Feb 22, 2007 8:38:51 GMT -5
Harry Potter. Hated the books, hated the movies even more. The special affects were okay and the use of magic was ocassionally diverting - but there was certainly nothing impressive enough to make me overlook the glaring faults. I have to say the second movie was the worst - that elf thing looked like a really badly done knockoff of Gollum from LotR only with less personality and a really grating voice. Not to mention they got the basalisk all wrong - a basalisk is not a friggin' snake, much less some humongous snake. The third movie was fair enough, but suffered from so many obvious plotpoints (something it shares with the book, admittedly). I mean "Remus Lupin"? These kids are att a school learning about magic and they can't even figure out that "Lupin" is "wolf" in Latin? And "Remus" - as in the twin brother of Romulus, raised by a WOLF. The first time I heard his name I knew he was a friggin werewolf. And yet Harry can't figure it out? I thought he was supposed to be smart or something.
One thing the first movie had going for it was that it was a fairly good adaptation of the book, but to me the book never read like a proper novel - it actually read like someone was writing with the goal of making a movie. Maybe she improved with the later books, but the first few were really bad. Also, it ticked me off royally when I saw just how many things were borrowed from other sources - including a scene that seemed to have been stolen wholesale from a much older book (and I really wish I could remember the name of it now - it was about this wizard kid who was an albino). I applaud HP for two things - interesting kids in reading and the fact that the reinsurgance of interest in fantasy led to some of my favourite childhood books being re-released. But the movies don't even have those positive traits. Worthless drivel - not the worst ever, but I have to rate them lower for trying to be something they're just not.
|
|
masterab
Appa
Band Geeks Rule. And Yes We Are A Colt.
Posts: 222
|
Post by masterab on Feb 28, 2007 18:53:47 GMT -5
The Harry Potter movies. Captain Klepto:If your logic and reason is above that of a ten year old, you know they just plain suck. Growly:Harry Potter. Hated the books, hated the movies even more. The special affects were okay and the use of magic was ocassionally diverting - but there was certainly nothing impressive enough to make me overlook the glaring faults. I have to say the second movie was the worst - that elf thing looked like a really badly done knockoff of Gollum from LotR only with less personality and a really grating voice. Not to mention they got the basalisk all wrong - a basalisk is not a friggin' snake, much less some humongous snake. The third movie was fair enough, but suffered from so many obvious plotpoints (something it shares with the book, admittedly). I mean "Remus Lupin"? These kids are att a school learning about magic and they can't even figure out that "Lupin" is "wolf" in Latin? And "Remus" - as in the twin brother of Romulus, raised by a WOLF. The first time I heard his name I knew he was a friggin werewolf. And yet Harry can't figure it out? I thought he was supposed to be smart or something. One thing the first movie had going for it was that it was a fairly good adaptation of the book, but to me the book never read like a proper novel - it actually read like someone was writing with the goal of making a movie. Maybe she improved with the later books, but the first few were really bad. Also, it ticked me off royally when I saw just how many things were borrowed from other sources - including a scene that seemed to have been stolen wholesale from a much older book (and I really wish I could remember the name of it now - it was about this wizard kid who was an albino). I applaud HP for two things - interesting kids in reading and the fact that the reinsurgance of interest in fantasy led to some of my favourite childhood books being re-released. But the movies don't even have those positive traits. Worthless drivel - not the worst ever, but I have to rate them lower for trying to be something they're just not. I disagree with you. They are freakin amazing. They leave some stuff out from the books. but other than that they are good.And pluss. JK Rowling did not copy anything from LOTR. I like that stuff too and she didnt copy it.
|
|
|
Post by Karatelover on Feb 28, 2007 19:07:51 GMT -5
And yet Harry can't figure it out? I thought he was supposed to be smart or something. Harry may look nerdy, but looks can be deciviving. ;D Let's see don't watch those movies on the Scifi Channel most of them suck! And stay away from "Glidder" with Mariah Carey and "Crossroads" with fricken Britney Spears!
|
|
Growly
DOBS Katara
The Jester of Multishipping
The Mod behind the Myth
Posts: 6,059
|
Post by Growly on Feb 28, 2007 19:14:04 GMT -5
I disagree with you. They are freakin amazing. They leave some stuff out from the books. but other than that they are good.And pluss. JK Rowling did not copy anything from LOTR. I like that stuff too and she didnt copy it. Note, I didn't say ROWLING copied anything from LOTR. I was speaking about the character design in the movie. I'm pretty sure she wasn't doing the computer animation on that. And that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the "twists" were pretty obvious. Also, whether she did it on purpose or not, she borrowed a lot from books that were out long before she started writing. If another person starts griping about how Diana Wynne Jones is copying Rowling's ideas, I'm going to have to start busting heads. The book being referenced in the instance I'm remembering was written in 1975. Unless DWJ can see the future, I highly doubt she was stealing from Harry Potter.
|
|
|
Post by Karatelover on Feb 28, 2007 19:17:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cara24 on Feb 28, 2007 19:45:23 GMT -5
Romeo and Juliet (I think its the one made in 1968)
|
|
|
Post by appacatbus on Feb 28, 2007 19:53:18 GMT -5
I have to say the second movie was the worst - that elf thing looked like a really badly done knockoff of Gollum from LotR only with less personality and a really grating voice. Agreed. Although Dobby isnt as bad in the books. Not to mention they got the basalisk all wrong - a basalisk is not a friggin' snake, much less some humongous snake. Wrong, the appearance (and size) of a basilisk in mythology is inconsistent. It has been described as at least three different things: 1. Lizard 2. Cokcatrice 3 Snake The third movie was fair enough, but suffered from so many obvious plotpoints (something it shares with the book, admittedly). I mean "Remus Lupin"? These kids are att a school learning about magic and they can't even figure out that "Lupin" is "wolf" in Latin? And "Remus" - as in the twin brother of Romulus, raised by a WOLF. The first time I heard his name I knew he was a friggin werewolf. And yet Harry can't figure it out? I thought he was supposed to be smart or something. The book was targeted at young readers who probably dont know latin. Maybe she improved with the later books, [/quote] She did.
|
|
Growly
DOBS Katara
The Jester of Multishipping
The Mod behind the Myth
Posts: 6,059
|
Post by Growly on Feb 28, 2007 21:08:40 GMT -5
Wrong, the appearance (and size) of a basilisk in mythology is inconsistent. It has been described as at least three different things: 1. Lizard 2. Cokcatrice 3 Snake Cockatrice is another word for a basilisk (or an animal that meets every description of one with the exception of how it's hatched), not a real animal it's compared to. Unless you're thinking of "cockeral" which is another name for a type of bird, I believe. However, what they had it DOING (in the movie, at least) wasn't like any of the mythological depictions of the basilisk. I wouldn't be so sure of that - Lupis, Lupine, Lupin, loup garou - the variations on the word are myriad but they all mean "wolf" (well, loup garou is werewolf, but *shrugs*). I also recall reading the story of Romulus and Remus at a fairly early age - I think I was ten or eleven. In any case, she either expected them to get it or she didn't. If she didn't think they'd get it then why bother having any clues to his werewolf status? If she thought they would get it then why not go a step further and assume they'd be savvy enough that such an obvious monicker would be pointless? And none of that addresses the fact that she borrowed ideas willy nilly from many fantasy books of the 70s and 80s. I just really wish I could remember the one book in particular I was thinking of - I didn't like it much, but it was definitely borrowed from heavily (and some scenes almost felt ripped entirely with slightly different characters inserted).
|
|
Snowbunny
FN Sokka
I can't see me loving nobody but you for all my life.
Posts: 1,703
|
Post by Snowbunny on Feb 28, 2007 21:11:14 GMT -5
Python v. Cobra.
|
|
|
Post by appacatbus on Feb 28, 2007 21:17:53 GMT -5
Wrong, the appearance (and size) of a basilisk in mythology is inconsistent. It has been described as at least three different things: 1. Lizard 2. Cokcatrice 3 Snake However, what they had it DOING (in the movie, at least) wasn't like any of the mythological depictions of the basilisk. Basilisks have been described as giant snakes. A mythological basilisk is capable of killing a person with its eyes, just as it did in the book/movies. I wouldn't be so sure of that - Lupis, Lupine, Lupin, loup garou - the variations on the word are myriad but they all mean "wolf" (well, loup garou is werewolf, but *shrugs*). I also recall reading the story of Romulus and Remus at a fairly early age - I think I was ten or eleven. In any case, she either expected them to get it or she didn't. If she didn't think they'd get it then why bother having any clues to his werewolf status? If she thought they would get it then why not go a step further and assume they'd be savvy enough that such an obvious monicker would be pointless? Even if a young kid did know the romulus&remus story, they wouldnt immediately associate the name with werewolf or even plain wolf. The reason she had the additional clues was beause most kids wouldnt get it without the hints. Most kids still were surprised by the ending (book at least, movie its super obvious). And none of that addresses the fact that she borrowed ideas willy nilly from many fantasy books of the 70s and 80s. I just really wish I could remember the one book in particular I was thinking of - I didn't like it much, but it was definitely borrowed from heavily (and some scenes almost felt ripped entirely with slightly different characters inserted). I didnt read those books so i cant debate you on that as i am unsure whether you are nitpicking or making a valid complaint. From what you wrote it also seems like you only read the first three books, and are forgetting that you might not be in the target age demographicc anyway.
|
|
Growly
DOBS Katara
The Jester of Multishipping
The Mod behind the Myth
Posts: 6,059
|
Post by Growly on Mar 1, 2007 6:54:02 GMT -5
I didnt read those books so i cant debate you on that as i am unsure whether you are nitpicking or making a valid complaint. From what you wrote it also seems like you only read the first three books, and are forgetting that you might not be in the target age demographicc anyway. Believe me, I wish I could remember the title of the book in question so I could offer it as more valid evidence. And I read the first one, skimmed the second and third and didn't touch anything after that. Although that has not stopped dozens of people ranging in age from 17 to 45 trying to push me to read the d*** things. I don't think they were in the target age demographic either. There is a reason I don't deal with rabid HP fans - and that reason is simply that they won't accept that I do not LIKE Harry Potter, that I have valid reasons for disliking Harry Potter and that no amount of shoving their books in my face (and/or calling me names, insulting my intelligence /family/taste in fantasy) will change that. Up until they began that **** I was perfectly content to just avoid the series. It was the fans that made me into the outspoken anti-HP person I am today. I hope they're happy.
|
|