Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scarred]

IT'S AFRAAAAIIIID!!!!!

edit:



AAFFRAAAAIIIIID!!!!

[a pack of wolves]

Also, the movie was pretty terrible because the acting was shit and the romantic elements were shit.

The shitty acting was one of the things I enjoyed about the film. Nothing in there is subtle and it seemed a pleasantly blunt attack on the simplistic approach of the average war film. The bad acting made the characters (even more) flat and uninteresting, and that heightened their position as archetypes placed into a narrative in order to make the viewer identify with the plight of 'our brave boys' (or in this case, take the piss out of it).

Plus, it was a hell of a lot of fun.

[Blue Kitty]

If anything I enjoyed the cartoon that was based off of the movie.

Also:

[Sox]

Starship Troopers was great. Everything that you think was just shit was completely intentional. Watch the the movie with the commentaries on,  and pull those sticks out your butt. The movie gets a lot more enjoyable that way.
Seriously ahead of its time. It's like Paul Verhoven predicted the entire Iraq war and the media reaction to it.

[Nodaisho]

If anything I enjoyed the cartoon that was based off of the movie.

You mean the CG one? That one at least had powered armor, even if they removed the flamethrowers, shoulder-mounted nukes, mile-long jumps, and mini-grenades that they would throw handfuls of. I still need to see the CG cartoon, as well as the Anime, which was based completely off of the book, from what I can tell.

[axerton]

The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things, I  can understand why plot elements need to be changed so as to save on time or to make it more cinematic, but when something visual is changed for no apparent reason it pisses me off. The example that comes to mind is Harry Potter POA
1) the Patronus: the book clearly stated it was a white glowing stag that charges down dementors causing them to flee, but the movie had just a sort of glowing sheild where with a stag in the middle of it that dementors bounced off.
2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf

[scarred]

2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf

lololol

Tr0of.

[E. Spaceman]

If you guys haven't heard, Dune is being remade yet again, this time by Peter Berg.

Holy shit, at the time i saw the Lynch movie I was a massive Dune fan and i could still not understand what the hell was going on in the movie.

[Kugai]

And yes, I know that David Lynch was the Director of the Dune film, (and at one stage he asked for his name to be removed from it), but the fact remains that it was a De Laurentis Production and as anyone who knows can tell you, when Dino produces a Pic, the man's in the driving seat.

[MadassAlex]

The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things, I  can understand why plot elements need to be changed so as to save on time or to make it more cinematic, but when something visual is changed for no apparent reason it pisses me off. The example that comes to mind is Harry Potter POA
1) the Patronus: the book clearly stated it was a white glowing stag that charges down dementors causing them to flee, but the movie had just a sort of glowing sheild where with a stag in the middle of it that dementors bounced off.
2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf

Those aren't frankly very big changes.

[satsugaikaze]

Reading the book of Starship Troopers, it was pretty much just a long serious, journal of sorts centering around a civilian's rise to citizenship with socio-political commentary sprinkled on top blah blah.
You could say that the film was pretty much the opposite. It was a friggin cheesy satire. It did what it did with absolute hilarity. Yeah, it did completely butcher the book by taking the source material and arguing that Heinlein's ideas are a total shit.

But in terms of entertainment and being funny, it could have been a lot, lot worse.

[E. Spaceman]

Yeah, it did completely butcher the book by taking the source material and arguing that Heinlein's ideas are a total shit.

To be fair, this is completely true.

[CardinalFang]

I think the main problem with the movie Starship Troopers was the complete lack of...well...Starship Troopers.
Where was the power armor? "On the bounce!"
What about the missile launchers firing tactical nukes? C'mon!
No flamers, no talking bombs. Feh!

An old movie Von Ryan's Express.
In the book Von Ryan makes it onto the train and escapes the Germans.
In the movie Von Ryan gets gunned down just before jumping on the train.

According to wiki the idea for changing the ending came from Frank Sinatra who was playing Colonel Ryan. I guess you don't argue with Frank.

[axerton]

The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things, I  can understand why plot elements need to be changed so as to save on time or to make it more cinematic, but when something visual is changed for no apparent reason it pisses me off. The example that comes to mind is Harry Potter POA
1) the Patronus: the book clearly stated it was a white glowing stag that charges down dementors causing them to flee, but the movie had just a sort of glowing sheild where with a stag in the middle of it that dementors bounced off.
2) Werewolf: Book - "The werewolf differs from the true wolf in several small ways" Movie - fuck it we'll just make a giant bipedal wolf

Those aren't frankly very big changes.

The things that irritate me in book to movie transitions are the little things

Thank you for telling me exactly what I had already said myself. Just to reiterate: What pisses me off is when changes like these are made for no reason, when it would be so easy to get it right.

[MadassAlex]

Oh well. Sorry.

[no one special]

THE FIRM.

Awesome book by John Grisham - wretched movie.  The last 1/3 of the movie is completely different than the book, completely ruins the point of the story, not to mention the story itself.  Garbage. 

Just re-watched Order of The Phoenix and there is only one real problem I have with that film. At the beginning when Harry and his escorts arrive at 12 Grimmauld place, Moody taps his stick/cane/staff on the ground and the house appears. How much harder would it have been to have the letter from Dumbledore knocked up by the prop department and just have Moody give Harry the parchment? Maybe a quick close up of the letter over Harry's shoulder and there, done. That kind of irritated me.

You only have ONE real problem with film?  Damn, I hate this movie more than Dick Cheney hates justice - my lists of problems with this film(when comparing it to the book) is a mile long. 

The shitty acting was one of the things I enjoyed about [Starship Troopers]. Nothing in there is subtle and it seemed a pleasantly blunt attack on the simplistic approach of the average war film. The bad acting made the characters (even more) flat and uninteresting, and that heightened their position as archetypes placed into a narrative in order to make the viewer identify with the plight of 'our brave boys' (or in this case, take the piss out of it).

Plus, it was a hell of a lot of fun.

I agree 100%. 

[Catacombs]

The DaVinci Code.




Thread over.

[NeverQuiteGoth]

The DaVinci Code.

OMG yes.

First of all, Tom Hanks? Totally wrong for the part. (Anthony Michael Hall would have fit so much better IMO)

Then there's the way they pretty much butchered the grace with which the book made its points about religion. And the way they completely changed the ending so its meaningless. And the way the substituted THIS-IS-IMPORTANT music for good acting.
 

[supersheep]

grace

this is not a word anyone is allowed use with regard to dan brown's writing

[JD]

The fact that Angels and Demons is being pitched as a sequel irritates me.

[BeoPuppy]

Dune. There are so many things in the first film that are just wrong. Frank Herbert spent pages and pages explaining how a planet without water might work ... and at the end of the film it starts to rain.

Yeah. Riight.

[NeverQuiteGoth]

Dune. There are so many things in the first film that are just wrong. Frank Herbert spent pages and pages explaining how a planet without water might work ... and at the end of the film it starts to rain.

Yeah. Riight.

Moa'dib MADE it rain. He has SUPER POWERS.... 

That first movie was still WAY better than the crappy scifi miniseries at least.

[TheFuriousWombat]

The DaVinci Code.




Thread over.

If the book hadn't been absolute ungodly tripe, inconsistencies between the book and movie might be a bit more egregious.

[Orbert]

What was that thing they did in the Lynch version of Dune, with the device that amplified your voice and could bust down walls and shit?  What was that all about?

[BeoPuppy]

That was Lynch's translation of 'the weirding way' mentioned in the book. It is supposed to be a self defence system deviced by the Bene Gesserit. But somehow it ended up being a weird box wich could amplify sound until ... strong ... and concentrated enough to .. shatter stone ... and stuff.

I don't know. It was a weird thing seeing that.

[Felrender]

That was Lynch's translation of 'the weirding way' mentioned in the book. It is supposed to be a self defence system deviced by the Bene Gesserit. But somehow it ended up being a weird box wich could amplify sound until ... strong ... and concentrated enough to .. shatter stone ... and stuff.

I don't know. It was a weird thing seeing that.

Wait, so, in Lynch-land, spice-boosted precognizance + Whatever powers a male Bene Geseerit has = Siryn's powers?  Weak.

[Kugai]

Dune. There are so many things in the first film that are just wrong. Frank Herbert spent pages and pages explaining how a planet without water might work ... and at the end of the film it starts to rain.

Yeah. Riight.

Moa'dib MADE it rain. He has SUPER POWERS.... 

That first movie was still WAY better than the crappy scifi miniseries at least.

Other way round I'm afraid. 

The film made me gag

[SirJuggles]

Have we mentioned Eragon? I don't have many specifics because I was so disgusted by the movie that I didn't retain much. I'll admit the book was entirely LotR-lite, but at least it stayed relatively true to it's source material. I... I honestly don't know what the people who made the movies read.

[BeoPuppy]

Wait, so, in Lynch-land, spice-boosted precognizance + Whatever powers a male Bene Geseerit has = Siryn's powers?  Weak.

Yes. That was, I guess, what he could come up with. He didn't think of actually talking to some martial artists and training and doing stuff but he went another way. And, I feel, he was wrong. The movie has some redeeming qualities. But this stuff just annoys me to bits.

[MadassAlex]

Have we mentioned Eragon? I don't have many specifics because I was so disgusted by the movie that I didn't retain much. I'll admit the book was entirely LotR-lite, but at least it stayed relatively true to it's source material. I... I honestly don't know what the people who made the movies read.

How does one ruin Eragon? So utterly derivative and self-important, while wearing the guise of originality. If you have orcs in your book, call them "orcs". At least the Forgotten Realms/Dragonlance/whatever novels don't beat around the bush in that regard. They knew they were ridiculously derivative of LotR, Warhammer and, of course, D&D, and used such things to their advantage. They even managed humour, tension, unpredictability and likable characters in some cases.
Eragon is essentially a Mary-Sue-athon where the author looked at all the above sources and missed the point, themes and cool factor entirely. LotR is great because it's all about defying fate, not altering reality so that you become genetically superior (in which Eragon carries more racist undertones than LotR ever could).

I guess I am being very very harsh and it's not like I'm making judgements about those who read the book, but there aren't many ways you can essentially ruin Eragon, since it's already a mockery of the already rather poor swords and sorcery fantasy genre.

[scarred]

All I have to say about Eragon is thusly:

When you name a species "Urgle," you don't deserve to live.

[StaedlerMars]

The DaVinci Code.

If the book hadn't been absolute ungodly tripe, inconsistencies between the book and movie might be a bit more egregious.

Man, it was essentially just an easy reading Foucault's Pendulum by Eco. I'm glad other people had problems with it.

[NeverQuiteGoth]

Eragon isn't LotR-lite. Its more like bad star wars with dragons instead of spaceships. The books were mildly entertaining, I mean, I've read worse.

The movie, however, was ENTIRELY a shitstain on the world of cinema. I don't think there has ever been a worse adaptation. I have never walked out of a theater before Eragon and have never since, but it was just SO bad.

[Kugai]

Paolini (sp?) read Anne McCaffrey's Pern series and said to himself 'I can do something like that.'

The results speak for themselves.

[SirJuggles]

If anything... well the things that Eragon was ripped from were numerous. I think the best it can be summed up as is that it is visibly and unapologetically a product of Paolini's interests. It can't be denied that his influences are very visible, diverse though they may be. I personally enjoyed the books, but they are for the most part intended for a more mid-range audience. The film, as we have already established, was garbage. I would have walked out too if I hadn't been taking my mom and sister to see it at the time.

[TheFuriousWombat]

The DaVinci Code.

If the book hadn't been absolute ungodly tripe, inconsistencies between the book and movie might be a bit more egregious.

Man, it was essentially just an easy reading Foucault's Pendulum by Eco. I'm glad other people had problems with it.

I'm pretty sure the general consensus amongst people who have read anything not found on the Top Sellers list at the airport book store is that the book is simply awful. I read a recent review of the Angels and Demons movie and the reviewer said that he hadn't read the book upon which that movie is based b/c it would be a "sin against his faith...in the English language...against which Mr. Brown practices vile and unspeakable blasphemy." I though that was pretty clever and right on.

[Avec]

Wait, did anyone mention War of The Worlds?

[Kugai]

Ahhh yes.

I suppose the one good thing one could say about that film is that they got the Martian War Machines right.

[Avec]

I felt it was about as necessary as all the Scary Movie spin offs, which as I recall had a whole part dedicated to the movie anyway.

[satsugaikaze]

Anything with Tom Cruise in it is a parodic comedy.

[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]

Yeah, and Sterling Bridge would have actually been fought on a Bridge.

And the Battle of Hastings would have been fought at fucking Hastings.  Goddamn medieval monks.

[rynne]

I Am Legend?  The theatrical cut omits the entire theme to which the title refers.

Book: Neville is a "legend" because the vampires have a functioning society and, to them, Neville is some monster who kills them in their sleep.

Film: Neville is a "legend" because he figured out how to cure vampirism and save humanity.

The alternate ending to the film retained some of the Neville = monster theme, but it's still nowhere near the book, where humans are completely wiped out and vampires basically took their role.

[Nodaisho]

Man, all of the I Am Legend adaptations change things.

[Tom]

To be fair, I actually like both the novel and the latest movie adaptation equally.

[Border Reiver]

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.

Wallace and the Anglo-Scottish Wars took place in the late 13th century - the Scots stopped fighting "skyclad" about the time of Boudicca (approx 70 AD, or 1200 years earlier).

If they'd wanted the scenes to look authentic - William Wallace would have been attired as the knight he was (he was the son of a minor knight), the Scots wouldn't have looked too different from the English (kilts were not that common outside of the Highlands, and most of Wallace's followers came from the Border Regions), and NO ONE would have worn facepaint.

Stirling would have had the battlefield cut in half by a stream with steep sides crossed by a single bridge.

The moive was fun - not as fun as Starship Troopers (which I define as a "turn off the brain and watch Michael Ironside chew scenery" flick) - in a "I'm Mel Gibson, and I really don't like the English, so please ignore the historical inconsistencies" sort of way.

[Josefbugman]

Why does he hate the english so much? I mean we have done a lot of bad stuff but the scottish have been fighting each other far more effectively than they had been fighting us since the end of the dark ages.

Its the same with "kingdom of heaven" the actual history of that time period was interesting enough, hollywood only embellished it so they could have some clearer characters. Oh well.