Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yeah, get that young sex the ******** out of my Holmes.

Ohmahgooooosh I'm not saying they are untalented and the film was horrible and I hate the shiny shmexy whoopla - I'm just saying I personally didn't need the characters to be upgraded to badassitude for it to work. Obviously Richie wanted to sex it up and bring the series to a modern audience so on so forth, and power to him. It can be the new Pirates. I just happen to like old Watson and arrogant cocaine using Holmes, that is just my personal preference - but I gave it a shot. I thought the character's essence where preserved well enough within the film, although of course they were overly simplified in many regards while expanded on exponentially in others - as is the nature of interpretation. One I don't prefer. Holmes gets points for not making me roll my eyes like Avatar did though.

He was a producer. It's no coincidence that half the supporting cast previously popped up in Juno and/or Thank You For Smoking. On paper, it looks like something I'd be absolutely interested in, but everything I've heard and seen in trailers makes me think otherwise. I'll get around to watching eventually.

Hadn't noticed he produced, but that's a far more logistical than creative position. I've honestly found that it rarely really pays to focus on who produces a movie unless they have a very specific focus like Joel Silver, David Lynch, Luc Besson or Judd Apatow. Reitman doesn't have much producing experience outside projects he directed himself so it's hard to say what kind of influence he'd have over a production. You read about guys, screenwriters especially, that work on Joel Silver productions like Shane Black or the Wachowskis and it's very clear that he's got a very specific vision and formula that he works hard to get his directors and writers adhering to.

I don't know what Reitman's involvement was, but I can certainly say from talking to someone who worked on Jennifer's Body (I swear to God that at least a third of my customers work in the industry) that there were a lot of production issues including a battle over re-writes that delayed the release over six months. I swear to God, if I ever get into film I will do everything in my power to stay away from Fox.

I myself don't really enjoy slash movies, comics I can read and enjoy. When I was younger I would sneak downstairs and watch slash films without anyone being the wiser, though now for some reason I shriek like a girly girly school chick and hide behind the nearest thing/person I can find.

The reverse of the classic gender roles is one of the main reason that I wanted to go see it. If that's the only reason 'Jennifer' said that in the trailer then I'll most likely pick it up just out of sheer curiousity. Though I'll most likely have to watch the dang thing more than once to get the full impact.

The satanic emo band I already knew about, I had a few conversations about the comic book with a few individuals before I saw the second trailer. My views on it was that they most likely warped the story so far off the comic bend that it was going to be something far from the reverse of the normal/classic gender vic in slash movies. Jennifer's Body is actually one of the trades on my list to read.

The Classic 'I'm a ditzy blond bimbo cheerleader with implants tripping over my feet as a killer comes at me at a very slow pace yet will inevitably catch me at the end of the scene/movie,' very much annoys me. And yet strangely at the same time I find it hilarious in some movies that over exaggerate it even more than my first statement in this paragraph. Jason X comes to mind the most, it was a horrid movie but I can't seem to not watch it. What with the camper girl program.





And Billy, I know what you mean. Not everyone likes the changes that can come from each views of how something should be or enjoy the smexing it up for the viewers. I enjoy the actors in that movie and will most likely enjoy it when I see it. But I can see your point of view.

Thanks! I'm not trying to force my point of view but just trying to explain it from my personal standpoint; I'm not confused as to why the film was made how it was or what it's purpose was, and I accept it. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

And "I have never been fond of Riche's style" doesn't mean "I can't believe he used this style for a 19th century period piece!" it means I don't like his style in really any of his films, whenever it is they take place.

New Super Mario Bros. Wii: 100% complete. In your FACE, 9-7.