Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
  1.  

    This was mostly created for the use of certain debaters debating Michael Gambon’s performance as Dumbledore versus Richard Harris’s.

  2.  

    they changed Dumbledore?

    Woah.

    Howl’s Moving Castle as a movie absolutely sucked. So did Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. ‘Nuff said.

  3.  

    The movie adaption of Howl’s Moving Castle horrified me and fascinated me. It might be my first Ghibli film.

    It was so wrong. I watched it with my sister who hadn’t read the book, and she complained about the romance. As I tried to convince her to read the book, I had to say, “NO NO NO THE ROMANCE IS ONLY THROWN IN AT THE ENNND!”

  4.  

    Actually, my reaction to the movie was the same as yours, but I’m usually a book purist so I stuck with DWJ. But the romance wasn’t really thrown in; it was just not shoved in our faces. It makes sense because when she’s weedkilling everything after they move the castle, Sophie’s grumbling about refusing to believe that she was caught with the red and grey suit—the one she charmed to make Howl irresistible, remember?

    Plus she was jealous of Miss Angorian. That, nobody can deny.

  5.  

    I really need to rewatch Howl’s Moving Castle to see how it compares to the book.

    As for film adaptations, a good one just needs to be faithful to the source material while adding something new to the table.

  6.  

    Most movie adaptations are terrible, or at least disappointing. Harry Potter is the exception for the most part. They’ve kept in most of the important stuff for the first four, the fifth was a disappointment, and the sixth was good, but they didn’t set up several story lines that were entertaining in the seventh book. The biggest disappointment in that one was there was no Dumbledore’s funeral. I was really looking forward to that part.

    I liked the original Dumbledore better, but under the circumstances, they got a pretty good replacement. At least he has so much make-up and stuff on that he doesn’t really look that different.

  7.  

    Thanks for totally spoiling what happened to Dumbledore, NP.

    @ Marquis: The movie of HMC was like this giant magic star-people time-travel anti-war monster-people dream-reality fest, with a giant dea ex machina thrown in at the end, and then reversed.

    So yeah, watch it for that, but I’m surprised that anybody who hadn’t read the book knew what was going on.

    Oh yeah, and the Witch of the Waste is ugly.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009 edited
     

    How did you not notice the swap???

    vs.

    I never read the book of Howl’s Moving Castle, but I liked the movie. As for Willy Wonka…. shudder... I agree

  8.  

    I liked the original Dumbledore better as well. I think he got Dumbledore’s sort of aloof kindness down more so than Gambon did. Gambon’s take just seemed unpleasant at points.

    At any rate, I’m inclined to be charitable in my opinions about adaptations, because it’s really difficult to do properly given the differences in medium. I think the most successful adaptations are ones that actively try to adapt the source material, instead of just transplant it, if that makes sense.

  9.  

    @ Willow: I haven’t even SEEN Harry Potter.

    I know what you’re saying, sansa, but it still could’ve been done so much better.

    Plus (stop me if I’ve mentioned this before) Howl looked like a girl in some places, but still had Christian Bale’s voice. So my squee was confused.

  10.  

    I’ve neither seen nor read HMC, so I have no opinions one way or the other.

  11.  

    I have so many film adaptations to bitch about, but I can’t think of any at the moment. I don’t know how I have mangaged to forget them because there are so many.

    There is one thing that annoys me in every single adaptation. When they cut stuff that was in the book out and put in random, useless stuff that wasn’t in the book instead. And when they change things that don’t really make a difference just for the sake of changing them. For example, they changed the name of Montag’s wife in Ferenheit 451 (sp?) FOR NO REASON, and they changed the age of Clarisse.

    Oh good, a movie to rant about. The above movie is one of the most annoying adaptations I’ve seen. I had high expectations for it too. They used the same actress to play two different people. She had short hair for one character and long for another. There was no Farber (I think that was his name) or hound. The acting was pretty aweful, and they just utterly screwed it up!
    /rant (for now)

  12.  

    As for other books, the Narnia films are pretty good. Also Henry Selick did a great take on Coraline.

    And while it may be a tad too early to say, that Cirque Du Freak movie looks like a bad excuse to make money off the vampire craze.

  13.  

    ^^Yes, it does. I only read the first book (a few years ago too), and I didn’t even like it, but the previews look nothing like the book (from what I can remember). I’m outraged for fans whenever I see it.

  14.  

    But the romance wasn’t really thrown in; it was just not shoved in our faces

    I know. When I reread it, there were a few hints. But I was trying to convince her to read it, and she didn’t want romance. She was fine with the level of romance in Harry Potter, but I think that was the most for her. I’m sorry for the late reply, by the way.

    @ Neurotic Platypus

    Aww… Fine, I didn’t even need to see the Fahrenheit 451 film.

    Jeez, when I started this comment, Marquis hadn’t replied yet.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009 edited
     

    As for the Harry Potter movies… I liked the first two. After that, they suck. A lot. And… ok, I’m afraid it is rant time.

    Commence rant

    First there was the crazy anorexic dentally challenged model “werewolf” (ok, really , Alfonso Cuaron? What the hell is that? A werewolf is a wolf, only with a tufted tail, narrow pupils, and a few other minor differences. So why this?)

    Then there was Goblet of Fire aka let’s put Hermione in Pansy’s horrific pink fluffy dress and ignore all the plot outside the tournament, not to mention make Dumbledore deranged and screw up the Barty Crouch thing, and mess up the Quidditch World Cup scene! Oh, and suddenly Durmstrang is all men, and Beauxbatons is all women?

    And then Order of the Phoenix with the stupid thing with Filch and the ladders and the Room of Requirement door, and let’s not mention Kreacher except briefly, let’s just pile on even more wangst than there was in the book. And they messed up Phineas Nigellus too. Not to mention the crappy pensive scene, which made Snape look like some whiny emo kid rather than a studious, asocial and somewhat evil chap. They didn’t even put in the thing with Lily! And James Potter looked retarded.

    And finally, Half Blood Prince. They made the crappy intro with Harry hitting on some waitress (pointless waste of time!). They gave Narcissa a retarded skunk stripe (she’s an icy blonde, morons!), and the obnoxious Harry/Ginny inventions with the shoelace tying and the stupid Burrow getting burned down (what the hell!) and the ENTIRE fight sequence at the end getting tossed out a window. Not to mention barely any mention of the Half Blood Prince at all. And the confrontation between Snape/Dumbledore was very, very badly done. And what was with Harry hiding under the floor? Really? And no funeral, and no resolution of the Harry/Ginny thing. I love Harry/Ginny in the book, but in the movie…. blech.

    Rant over

    Oh, and Marquis- Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was very good. As for Prince Caspian- I hated how they made Peter all wangsty, in the books he was fine. And the stupid castle raid, what was that all about? Not to mention the weird Caspian/Susan thing.

  15.  

    After that, they suck.

    Someone who agrees!

    The first two movies were good as both film adaptions and as standalone movies. I like that.

    she’s an icy blonde, morons

    There was no reason for her not to have blonde hair.

    stupid Burrow getting burned down

    “Are you a witch or not?” —Ron Weasley, when Hermione is going insane and wondering how she’s going to make a fire in the first (?) book

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009 edited
     

    Exactly! After the first two, not only are they not faithful to the books, but people who only watch the films get lost because they leave out so many key plot points.

    Hugs

    You realize very few people share our opinion, right? And Deathly Hallows is probably going to suck so much…. :(

    (Yeah… the Burrow burned down? What happened to aguamenti? Also, they left out Bill and Fleur, so it’s just going to be “oh, yeah, my brother who you’ve never met is getting married to someone you didn’t know was even in the country!”)

  16.  

    Thank you. :D

    hugs back

    You realize very few people share our opinion, right?

    I mentioned disliking the Goblet of Fire movie at school and this one girl was shocked and annoyed at me. I swear, people don’t want opinions that clash with theirs to exist.

  17.  

    I liked the Caspian/Susan thing but that was because I hadn’t read Prince Caspian in a while.

    They add even MORE angst to Order of the Phoenix? I’m not sure I can take any more… I practically died while reading it anyway!

  18.  

    As far as I can remember, most of the angst was actually cut.

  19.  

    o okay

  20.  

    @Willow
    Wow, I need to re-read the books because I didn’t notice half that stuff, though I do agree about the werewolf.

    The main thing that made me mad in the fifth one was that they completely left out all the Quidditch stuff. One of my favorite parts in the book is when Fred and George say, “Accio brooms,” and the brooms break through walls and stuff. Also, I think that there was a scene in the book where Hagrid teaches them about Thressels. And Cho didn’t rat them out in the book.

    I still like the movies though. I think that they are good adaptations compared to a lot of other botched ones I’ve seen.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009 edited
     

    Marquis, I was referring to the retarded opening sequence, with Dudley as a gangster (another WTF moment) mocking Harry having no mum and Harry going emo. The total amount of angst wasn’t too bad, but each second of it was highly concentrated wangst hell.

    Thestrals, NP. And yes, they mucked up the glory that was Fred/George on a mischief making expedition. I didn’t mind the Cho thing, probably because Marietta was so minor….they messed up much bigger stuff. Honestly, why don’t they sit down, read the book then turn it into a screenplay? Hell, most of us could probably do it competently!

  21.  

    ^^Sorry about spelling.

    Another one that is aweful is Lord of the Flies, the ’90s version. I haven’t seen the original. I want to, but I can’t find it.

    The ’90s version has American military school kids instead of British prep school kids. It’s set in the ’90s too. And there’s an adult. He gets hurt or something, but there’s still an adult.

    SPOILERS:

  22.  

    A+E Pride and Prejudice- good movie adaptation

    LOTR- good movie adaptation

    Narnia- eh-ish. Never liked Narnia that much in the first place.

    Harry Potter- eh-ish, and going down because they can’t fit in the entire book into 2 hours.

  23.  

    Narnia- eh-ish. Never liked Narnia that much in the first place.

    Same here. I’ve only seen Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe though, and I’ve only read the first three books.

  24.  

    Trust me, after The Horse and His Boy it gets stupid.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009
     

    We are discussing adaptions to screen, not the books themselves my lovelies.

    Not so much a fan of the A+E Pride and Prejudice. I’ve seen maybe a half hour, and Darcy is far too stiff, while Elizabeth comes across as a bitch :(

  25.  

    Erm. Relevant question: do you think film adaptions should also be good stand-alone movies?

  26.  

    Yes, I think that people who haven’t read the book should be able to follow the movie fine without it.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009
     

    Yes. Otherwise there’s no point in making a movie at all, if you can’t understand it without reading the book.

  27.  

    @ WW: But won’t they be adapting most of the other books anyway, since it’s making money?

    As for P+P, I liked Colin Firth better than that new guy. He seemed really watered down. And Darcy’s supposed to be stiff anyway. As for Elizabeth, I liked her.

  28.  

    When the Eragon movie came out, I hated it. Now, I have to wonder if I’m one of the few who thinks it’s bearable and not that bad.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009 edited
     

    I’m not really very particular about absolutely everything important that was in the book going into the movie. For instance, the Harry Potter films don’t bother me at all in that way. Really, I look at the books and the movies as two pretty completely different things, and can enjoy them as such. I lurve them both. :D

    All the LOTR films were quite well done, considering how impossible would be to actually make an accurate movie from those books. They added rather a lot of drama to the story and cut (quite a few) corners, but all in all the story came out intact, there was some really great acting in there, and the locations and special effects and soundtrack were absolutely fantastic (take my love of LOTR with a grain of salt, because even if it had turned out to be a terrible movie I still would have loved it for the scenery).

    As for Narnia, it turned out okay. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was actually quite good. They caught the British-kids-on-a-fantastical-adventure atmosphere that C.S. Lewis wrote about rather better than in Prince Caspian. Don’t even get me started on Prince Caspian. While I can enjoy it alright on it’s own, it’s possible one of the worst book-to-movie adaptations I’ve ever seen. I think the only character I really liked was Edmund. Susan, Peter, and Caspian were all butchered to death. D:

    Anyway. As for the reason this thread got started and all… I still say Michael Gambon made for a better Dumbledore. Richard Harris had no character beyond that of a Wise Old Oracle and occasionally a half-hearted comic relief (alas, earwax). Maybe it’s just because I’ve seen and loved Gambon in other films, but he rather than Harris seems to be the more competent, energetic, personable, powerful, and sometimes quirky wizard from the books.

    EDIT: I forgot some! Eragon… oh, Eragon. That one still stands as one of the worse movies I’ve seen, and mostly because of the acting. It hurt to watch. D: It was pretty much worse than Eragon the book by miles, which is saying quite a lot.

    Also, my prize for a movie adaptation that was Actually Better Than the Book goes to Twilight. Seriously. It’s easier to sit through two hours of badly-acted eye candy than a several-hundred-page-long confession of love.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009
     

    See, Harris was more subdued, but then he could suddenly remind you, holy crap, powerful wizard! Gambon seems to be perpetually hopped up on drugs.

  29.  

    Gambon seems to be perpetually hopped up on drugs.

    To me, that’s how Dumbledore should be: A powerful wizard that acts eccentric as a way to lower one’s guard.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009
     

    As for P+P, I liked Colin Firth better than that new guy. He seemed really watered down. And Darcy’s supposed to be stiff anyway. As for Elizabeth, I liked her.

    My mum always said that New Darcy wasn’t convincing as Mr. Darcy on account of his eyes always looking so sad and gentle. XD

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009
     

    I think the later Harry Potter movies (fourth movie onwards) rely too heavily on assuming the audience is familiar with the books, because there’s a lot they skip over that’s really quite vital for understanding the characters and plot. Especially in DH, I thought, there were times that I had to find my copy of Deathly Hallows and flick through to see what was actually happening/being discussed.

    • CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeOct 19th 2009
     

    Um…. the Deathly Hallows movie isn’t out yet!

  30.  

    @ Spanman- exactly! Watery Darcy is icky!

    •  
      CommentAuthorJeni
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009
     

    When the Eragon movie came out, I hated it. Now, I have to wonder if I’m one of the few who thinks it’s bearable and not that bad.

    Yes, yes you are. :D

    As for the Harry Potter movies… I liked the first two. After that, they suck. A lot. And… ok, I’m afraid it is rant time.

    All of the points you mentioned, Willow, are pretty much the entire reasons why I haven’t bothered with the HP movies. The books are just too complex, Rowling’s a really excellent plotter, and to get all that in the big screen is just… gnh.

    I think a TV series of them would have been better. :3 Admittedly I wouldn’t have liked anything apart from perfect faithfulness to the books…

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009
     

    Um…. the Deathly Hallows movie isn’t out yet!

    Duh. I mean the Halfblood Prince, of course. I got the two mixed up.

    I is brain have good, hyuck! :-p

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009
     

    @Spanman- exactly! Watery Darcy is icky!

    I love Matthew McFadyen and all, but the way he said his mean lines was not convincing at all. XD

    “Barely tolerable, I dare say. But not handsome enough to tempt me. You’d better return to your partner and enjoy her smiles. You’re wasting your time with me. [puppy eyes]”

    “Do you expect me to rejoice in the inferiority of your circumstances? [puppy eyes]”

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009
     

    I agree with all of the negative points made about the Harry Potter films. At least the differences made in the Lord of the Rings films made sense.

  31.  

    When the Eragon movie came out, I hated it. Now, I have to wonder if I’m one of the few who thinks it’s bearable and not that bad.

    No, you aren’t alone. I saw it for the first time on TV maybe a month-ish ago, and I didn’t find it soul-searingly terrible, but just boring and stupid.

    The worst parts were probably the things they changed, actually. I don’t know what was up with the Varden’s silly-looking gear, or Angela being so retarded, or Saphira spontaneously aging.

    Too bad it flopped. Eldest would’ve been an absolute abomination.

  32.  

    Eldest would’ve been an absolute abomination.

    And since so much of it is nothing, I think we’d have a montage and random crap and some fighting at the end. It would either be horrible and incoherent, or incredibly boring, moreso than something else boring and horrible.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009
     

    When the Eragon movie came out, I hated it. Now, I have to wonder if I’m one of the few who thinks it’s bearable and not that bad.

    That movie is one of my favorites. =|

  33.  

    In a good way?

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009
     

    That movie has almost unlimited LOL value. Seeing it in the theater with a bunch of anti-Inheritance = priceless.

  34.  

    Ok, that picture is awesome, I must admit.

  35.  

    I agree.

    Back on topic. Uh, I haven’t seen Prince Caspian yet. Isn’t there pop music in it?

    •  
      CommentAuthorRandomX2
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2009 edited
     
    Hey, you can't just edit like that -_-
  36.  

    I see.

  37.  

    Relevant question: do you think film adaptions should also be good stand-alone movies?

    YES! That is my beef with HMC. All the plot points are WAAAY in the background, like the prince missing from the neighbouring kingdom, and then at the end (seriously, this is not a spoiler because it has nothing to do with the ending) this thing turns into a man and is like, ‘I’m the prince, yo.’

    I watched part of Eragon last night. The girl who plays Arya is weird. Loved Brom and Roran. Wondered why everybody thinks they have to have British accents except for the Evil American Guy TM. When Sapphira came back about four times the size she used to be in less than 30 seconds, AND had that weird hippy pronouncement, I had to stop the movie and keep laughing and laughing and laughing, and I guess I forgot to put it back on again.

    What do we think about The Princess Bride? I am ashamed to say it, but I preferred the movie.

  38.  

    I saw the movie, then read the book. Both of them are absolutely charming.

  39.  

    Oh, and Pride and Prejudice seemed fine to me the first time (in the cinemas, YEAH!) but Mum reckoned Darcy was wet. I watched it again the other day and they all just seem desperately sad and dramatic and they talk fast. I still love it though. But nothing beats the BBC

    •  
      CommentAuthorElanor
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2009
     

    “Do you expect me to rejoice in the inferiority of your circumstances? [puppy eyes]”

    Hah! And that scene in the rain, he kept on moving his head towards Elizabeth and then back again, obviously wanting to kiss her and it was just…wince

  40.  

    Wondered why everybody thinks they have to have British accents except for the Evil American Guy TM

    It’s how they show they aren’t ripping off Star Wars, I guess.

  41.  

    @ Elanor: I didn’t even notice that! I did notice the puppy eyes though. Plus Elizabeth’s so nosy when she spies on Georgianna and Darcy, which wasn’t even IN the book.

    The thing that would have made me lol if I wasn’t so loyal, though, was that Elizabeth walks over to Netherfield to see her sister, and walks inside the house completely starstruck. Then she’s like ‘how’s my sister?’ and Darcy comes back at lightning speed with ‘she’s upstairs’, sounding as though it was the most urgent thing in the world.

    I think as a movie it was good, if a little fast in some places (plus the scenery and the music was completely amazing. I’m buying the piano sheet music book as soon as I can afford it). As an adaptation of the book, it wasn’t that great.

    Has anybody seen Bride and Prejudice? Absolutely amazing.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2009
     

    I have the sheet music for P&P! My sister got it for me for my birthday last year and it’s greeeeat. Except I’m not too terrific a pianist so I’m still stumbling through the few songs I did end up learning. Anyway.

    I haven’t seen Prince Caspian yet. Isn’t there pop music in it?

    Only some Regina Spektor in the credits, that I remember. If you do see it, don’t expect anthing too great (and definitely don’t expect anything remotely accurate to the book).

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2009
     

    The Princess Bride is one of the rare movies that I love both the book and the movie of. Each has their own merits and unique take on the subject matter, and I honestly can’t say which I like better.

    I also love the LotR film adaptions. They aren’t as good as the books, of course, but for adaptions they’re pretty good.

    On Eragon: worst adaption ever! When not even the most hardcore fans of the book like the movie, you know it’s got to be bad. It is painfully bad. It’s not even accurate. Only bright spot was Garrett Hedlund.

    Prince Caspian: whyyyyy did he have that terrible accent!

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2009
     

    I always imagined him to be nice and cheerful and oh-so-British. D: And then they had to go make him look/sound/act like someone who is trying to be a Spanish dreamboat. D:

  42.  

    A Series of Unfortunate Events was a terrible adaptation as well. I have a rant about it, but I’m not in the mood right now. I’ll type it later.

  43.  

    Oh gosh yes. What makes it worse is the fact that I know a ton of people who insisted that they “loved The Series of Unfortunate Events“ when they were talking about that inaccurate film.

  44.  

    Haven’t seen it, but hearing about the changes in The Golden Compass aren’t enticing me to rent it anytime soon. Also, I heard they cut out the original book’s ending. That is going to make any chance of a Subtle Knife adaptation really awkward to begin.

  45.  

    @ Unfortunate Events
    It was suck. The film on its own is okay, and I can mildly enjoy when I am able to separate from the books, but it usually just pisses me off. They had way too much “stupid humor.” Jim Carrey should not have been Count Olaf because his specialty is over-acting and stupid humor. The books had dry/dark humor. They were a lot more serious than the movie. And the whole thing where they put the marriage at the end, and had Klaus burn up the certificate.

  46.  

    I heard they cut out the original book’s ending

    Auggh!

    They did. That film was so fast-paced that it was like “Half-Blood Prince” in reverse*. It had so much potential to be a good, beautiful film (or am I exaggerating?).

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2009
     

    Jeez, guys! I love A Series of Unfortunate Events. This may or may not be because I saw the film before I read the book, and I stopped reading after the first book because frankly the series didn’t interest me.

    Yeah, but anyway. I’ve seen the movie countless times. D: It may be completely inaccurate to the books, but something about the humour must’ve hit the spot for me, because it still makes me laugh hysterically every time I watch it.

    please don’t hurt me

    Haven’t seen it, but hearing about the changes in The Golden Compass aren’t enticing me to rent it anytime soon.

    Don’t even get me started on Golden Compass. About the only good thing about it was the shmancy animation.

  47.  

    please don’t hurt me

    As long as you don’t start screaming, “wat is wrong with you h8ters?~!!!! asoue was soooooooooo00 good!2!! ur just retarded!1 haha.”

    About the only good thing about it was the shmancy animation.

    Which also left some things to desire. It was good, but they could have done better, I think.

  48.  

    @Marquis: I think The Golden Compass flopped so bad that they’re not making The Subtle Knife into a movie.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2009 edited
     

    Which also left some things to desire. It was good, but they could have done better, I think.

    Ah, perhaps, perhaps. I don’t remember the movie all too well, really. It’s been a year or so since I saw it anyway.

    Okay, the other good thing about it was the costumes. XP I lurved Mrs. Coulter’s and Serafina’s clothes. /costumes nerd

  49.  

    I thought the “anti-Christianity” thing ruined that.

  50.  

    Ruined what? The costumes?

  51.  

    Oh.

    Huh, Spanman’s response wasn’t there when I typed it. This is what I meant.

    hey’re not making The Subtle Knife into a movie.

    I thought the “anti-Christianity” thing ruined that.

    I lurved Mrs. Coulter’s and Serafina’s clothes.

    Yes, yes. :D

  52.  

    Oh, I see.

    I don’t remember the costumes at all. But I did like Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter.

  53.  

    No American company would produce The Subtle Knife or especially The Amber Spyglass. Removing religious references from The Golden Compass was not very difficult, but almost impossible in the second two books. And I don’t think I would watch the sequels anyway, Compass was a pretty poor film. Among parts I did like, Dakota Richard’s acting as Lyra was IMO excellent.

  54.  

    On Eragon: worst adaption ever! When not even the most hardcore fans of the book like the movie, you know it’s got to be bad. It is painfully bad. It’s not even accurate.

    Yeah, when I was an Eragon hardcore fan (now I’m just a reader), I saw a tiny bit of the movie and I was outraged. THEY COULDN’T EVEN GET ARYA’S HAIR COLOUR RIGHT!!!

    Ahem.

    Prince Caspian: whyyyyy did he have that terrible accent!

    RANDOM TRIVIA: He tried to base it off Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya’s accent.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2009
     

    Dakota Richard’s acting as Lyra was IMO excellent.

    Agreed. As was Nicole Kidman.

  55.  

    I didn’t like either of the Narnia movies. If for no other reason than the battles. O my, the battles. the LWW wasn’t too bad(Except for the retreat)(and the charge). In PC, the castle raid (horrid), the battle…No words can describe my horror.

  56.  

    I loved Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter.

    No American company would produce The Subtle Knife or especially The Amber Spyglass. [...] Compass was a pretty poor film

    That’s sad. They could have been the most amazing films… I have to agree though, if it were up to me to choose between making more films with the same level of quality or no films, I would choose the latter (“Don’t butcher the source material, thanks.”).

  57.  

    I don’t remember the Narnia fights being that bad, but I only saw each once. I do remember the second one leaning on bullet-time(sword-time/arrow-time?) way too heavily, though.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2009 edited
     

    THEY COULDN’T EVEN GET ARYA’S HAIR COLOUR RIGHT!!!

    The director made a decision to change it so that Arya wouldn’t be confused with Arwen. Very specifically, that was the only reason for the change. XD

  58.  

    ^^Arya didn’t have pointy ears either, if I remember correctly. She’s an elf! I was a hard-core fan too when I saw the movie. I still read them now, but I understand that they are poorly written and the plot is stolen from many other things.

    And Arya was supposed to be unconcious for a long time, and they didn’t even have Katrina.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2009
     

    They even cast her and had promo pics of her, but they cut out all the scenes she was in. XD

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2009
     

    And the Ra’zac were killed off, which sort of completely defeats the point of the next two books. And there were no dwarves, which makes no sense whatsoever.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2009
     

    The short version: the movie sucked. Hooray!

  59.  

    One more thing, then I’ll let it die: The Urgals were like fat, bald, ugly men. They’re supposed to have horns and be sort of like rams or bulls or something.

  60.  

    This isn’t really a flaw of the movie, per se, but did anyone else envision Nasuada as Hispanic-looking rather than African?

    I don’t know, that’s just how I always saw her in my mind, so when I saw the movie I was like ‘whoa, totally not what was going on in my head’.

  61.  

    This isn’t really a flaw of the movie, per se, but did anyone else envision Nasuada as Hispanic-looking rather than African?

    I always pictured her as Middle-Eastern.

  62.  

    Yeah, because of the whole ‘almond-shaped eyes’ thing or whatever…

  63.  

    I always saw her as African.

    The director made a decision to change it so that Arya wouldn’t be confused with Arwen. Very specifically, that was the only reason for the change. XD

    Oh, my gosh. Is there any way to indicate how loud my lulz-meter is screaming?

    And I liked Katrina and having her cut out sucked.

    I liked the battles in Narnia, but I don’t know too much about battlefield tactics in general, so I can’t comment. Caspian‘s battle scenes though, were very long. And I did think the underground sinkhole thing was a bit dodgy—the forerunners were doing it rather than the last people.

  64.  

    There were perpetual motion trebuchets on the battlefield.

    I rest my case.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     

    I was just watching some of Tintin the cartoon version. It’s terrible compared to the books. D:

    •  
      CommentAuthorJeni
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     

    ...are you crazy? The Adventures of Tintin are freakin’ amazing. And the OPENING. THAT MUSIC MAKES MY HEART MELT.

    As far as I remember, they’re pretty faithful to the books. Not strictly, but compared to how some books are butchered…

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     

    I watched a few… those episodes are darn hard to find. And so far, I’m not impressed. =/

    •  
      CommentAuthorJeni
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     

    Why? The storylines are fairly faithful, the art is consistent with the books and the voice actors are top notch…

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     

    There are actually two Tintin cartoon series, Herge’s Adventures of Tintin, from 1958-62, differing greatly from the books, and Adventures of Tintin, from 1991-92, with much better animation and more faithful plotting.
    I’ve only seen the Moon episodes, but the 1991 series is fun.

    •  
      CommentAuthorJeni
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     

    Yeeeah, but I’m figuring that very few (if any) people here would have watched the original and made an educated assumption that the ’91 version was the one Puppet was talking about, on account of the original not being up on youtube.

    And less likely to be online.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMoldorm
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2009
     

    OK, so it was a bit obvious which one he was talking about, but it let me put the trivia to use, and it might potentially maybe have been relevant in some way.

    Tintin is quite awesome, regardless.