Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Book to movie inconsistencies that are genuinely annoying and unneeded
Inlander:
When my housemates and I were watching War of the Worlds we realised that overblown Hollywood blockbusters can be rendered much more enjoyable if you furnish them with imaginary climaxes that are even more ludicrous than those they have already.
In the case of War of the Worlds, my housemates and I had endless fun with the notion that the only reason Dakota Fanning was in the film was because, it would turn out, the one thing on earth that could stop the aliens were the tears of a child. "Tears of a child!" became a running refrain whenever her character was in distress (which was often).
Josefbugman:
I was irritated by the "War" film because of the fact that they showed the invaders as 1. Unstoppable and 2. Had no mention of the ship "thunderchild" I mean they might have included a refference to it during the big fight in the middle. Something like "operation thunderchild is going badly sir" when the army guy is on the phone I mean come on filmmakers read the book that you are making a film of.
Can we have real life to film annoyances? Because Braveheart should be included... in a huge way.
TheFuriousWombat:
Whenever I watch the battle scenes in Braveheart I think "man, if they really wanted to be authentic all those Scots would be naked right now" and then I thank god that they didn't concern themselves with being that accurate.
Kugai:
Yeah, and Sterling Bridge would have actually been fought on a Bridge.
Surgoshan:
--- Quote from: Kugai on 17 May 2009, 19:17 ---Yeah, and Sterling Bridge would have actually been fought on a Bridge.
--- End quote ---
And the Battle of Hastings would have been fought at fucking Hastings. Goddamn medieval monks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version