|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:11 pm
Bryn McCardell bluecelebi _Lord_Adventure_ Yeah...and they can't make a movie with the 4th book if Klaus doesn't have glasses. gonk Well, by looking at how badly they mutilated this movie it looks like they could.
I mean, think about it. They have to make sure that people who HAVEN'T read the books will be entertained-because quite frankly, what's entertaining in a book may need something else to be entertaining on a screen. They have to make sure that people who HAVE read the books will like it. They have to keep it within a certain time frame, because it *is* geared towards kids, and you really can't make a four-hour kids' movie. And yeah, they have to make money-and anyone who's complaining about that, get the hell over it right now.
But considering ALL that-which yeah, they have to do to make money off of it-I think they did pretty good.
And as far as the ending goes, yeah, I wish they'd kept the original one. But you know, maybe they did try that at first and maybe they decided it DIDN'T flow right, and maybe they decided the marriage was a better ending. It might've been! I mean, back to the fact that they have to make sure people who haven't read the books will like it. They do have to consider that. And if they decided that the marriage needed to be at the end, then yeah, they'd have to add the train scene, because otherwise there wouldn't have been a good transition.
Then there's the VFD thing. Yes, I think they did too much, too soon, I'm a little angry about the spyglass and that window thing. But I do get why they introduced VFD so early. Because, let's admit it guys, the first four books are horribly repetitive. Orphans get a new guardian, Olaf shows up, only orphans recognize him, Olaf does something to guardian, orphans 'unmask' him, Olaf gets away. Yeah, that same thing three times over in one movie would've been just so terribly entertaining. So they added some of the mystery of VFD-too much, but, meh-which would also ensure that people would come to the next one.
...*deep breath* I'm done now.I agree.. While I did disagree with some of their choices, they definitely didn't mutilate it. I've gone to see it three times now and each time I like it more, I just find it neat the way they went about doing things. If there's one thing I didn't like it was Jude Law as Lemony Snicket, but it could've been much worse.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:38 pm
paradoxical Bryn McCardell bluecelebi _Lord_Adventure_ Yeah...and they can't make a movie with the 4th book if Klaus doesn't have glasses. gonk Well, by looking at how badly they mutilated this movie it looks like they could.
I mean, think about it. They have to make sure that people who HAVEN'T read the books will be entertained-because quite frankly, what's entertaining in a book may need something else to be entertaining on a screen. They have to make sure that people who HAVE read the books will like it. They have to keep it within a certain time frame, because it *is* geared towards kids, and you really can't make a four-hour kids' movie. And yeah, they have to make money-and anyone who's complaining about that, get the hell over it right now.
But considering ALL that-which yeah, they have to do to make money off of it-I think they did pretty good.
And as far as the ending goes, yeah, I wish they'd kept the original one. But you know, maybe they did try that at first and maybe they decided it DIDN'T flow right, and maybe they decided the marriage was a better ending. It might've been! I mean, back to the fact that they have to make sure people who haven't read the books will like it. They do have to consider that. And if they decided that the marriage needed to be at the end, then yeah, they'd have to add the train scene, because otherwise there wouldn't have been a good transition.
Then there's the VFD thing. Yes, I think they did too much, too soon, I'm a little angry about the spyglass and that window thing. But I do get why they introduced VFD so early. Because, let's admit it guys, the first four books are horribly repetitive. Orphans get a new guardian, Olaf shows up, only orphans recognize him, Olaf does something to guardian, orphans 'unmask' him, Olaf gets away. Yeah, that same thing three times over in one movie would've been just so terribly entertaining. So they added some of the mystery of VFD-too much, but, meh-which would also ensure that people would come to the next one.
...*deep breath* I'm done now.I agree.. While I did disagree with some of their choices, they definitely didn't mutilate it. I've gone to see it three times now and each time I like it more, I just find it neat the way they went about doing things. If there's one thing I didn't like it was Jude Law as Lemony Snicket, but it could've been much worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:44 pm
Bryn McCardell paradoxical Bryn McCardell bluecelebi _Lord_Adventure_ Yeah...and they can't make a movie with the 4th book if Klaus doesn't have glasses. gonk Well, by looking at how badly they mutilated this movie it looks like they could.
I mean, think about it. They have to make sure that people who HAVEN'T read the books will be entertained-because quite frankly, what's entertaining in a book may need something else to be entertaining on a screen. They have to make sure that people who HAVE read the books will like it. They have to keep it within a certain time frame, because it *is* geared towards kids, and you really can't make a four-hour kids' movie. And yeah, they have to make money-and anyone who's complaining about that, get the hell over it right now.
But considering ALL that-which yeah, they have to do to make money off of it-I think they did pretty good.
And as far as the ending goes, yeah, I wish they'd kept the original one. But you know, maybe they did try that at first and maybe they decided it DIDN'T flow right, and maybe they decided the marriage was a better ending. It might've been! I mean, back to the fact that they have to make sure people who haven't read the books will like it. They do have to consider that. And if they decided that the marriage needed to be at the end, then yeah, they'd have to add the train scene, because otherwise there wouldn't have been a good transition.
Then there's the VFD thing. Yes, I think they did too much, too soon, I'm a little angry about the spyglass and that window thing. But I do get why they introduced VFD so early. Because, let's admit it guys, the first four books are horribly repetitive. Orphans get a new guardian, Olaf shows up, only orphans recognize him, Olaf does something to guardian, orphans 'unmask' him, Olaf gets away. Yeah, that same thing three times over in one movie would've been just so terribly entertaining. So they added some of the mystery of VFD-too much, but, meh-which would also ensure that people would come to the next one.
...*deep breath* I'm done now.I agree.. While I did disagree with some of their choices, they definitely didn't mutilate it. I've gone to see it three times now and each time I like it more, I just find it neat the way they went about doing things. If there's one thing I didn't like it was Jude Law as Lemony Snicket, but it could've been much worse. Yes he did it pretty well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:42 pm
bluecelebi Bryn McCardell paradoxical I agree.. While I did disagree with some of their choices, they definitely didn't mutilate it. I've gone to see it three times now and each time I like it more, I just find it neat the way they went about doing things. If there's one thing I didn't like it was Jude Law as Lemony Snicket, but it could've been much worse. Yes he did it pretty well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 1:44 pm
You know, although there were many things I was unhappy with, one thing I WAS happy with was the set design/costume design. It wasn't the exact feel I would have expected from the book (old/antique like) but it was pretty interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:03 pm
Oh, I *adored* that. They did that great, I mean, cause you don't HAVE a time period for SoUE, just a feel, and I think they did amazingly well. I loved Violet's dress...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:05 pm
Bryn McCardell Oh, I *adored* that. They did that great, I mean, cause you don't HAVE a time period for SoUE, just a feel, and I think they did amazingly well. I loved Violet's dress... Well by context clues you can guess that it's fairly recent, I mean Monty had a Jeep, they have a huge mechanical submarine, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:11 pm
[ddrfreek] Bryn McCardell Oh, I *adored* that. They did that great, I mean, cause you don't HAVE a time period for SoUE, just a feel, and I think they did amazingly well. I loved Violet's dress... Well by context clues you can guess that it's fairly recent, I mean Monty had a Jeep, they have a huge mechanical submarine, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:24 pm
virgogrl it practically broke my heart to see all of them, the one that really bothered me is that Mr. Poe never coughed!!! (doesn't he kind of resemble Peter Pettigrew from HP?) oh dear god every scene i was just like what? no! evilness!!! and mr poe was peter pettigrew! 3nodding i hated the movie crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
yeah i couldn't really tell waht time period it was because during the play it wasn't very big or spectacular but they said oh i never knew they had this budget so i duno it seemed back a bit and i also couldn't tell what time of day that scene was it was weird eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:09 pm
Bryn McCardell Oh, I *adored* that. They did that great, I mean, cause you don't HAVE a time period for SoUE, just a feel, and I think they did amazingly well. I loved Violet's dress... It was old fashioned! whee And I expected Klaus to be wearing a suit because of Brett Helquist's drawings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:13 pm
Morning Light Bryn McCardell Oh, I *adored* that. They did that great, I mean, cause you don't HAVE a time period for SoUE, just a feel, and I think they did amazingly well. I loved Violet's dress... It was old fashioned! whee And I expected Klaus to be wearing a suit because of Brett Helquist's drawings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:38 pm
I like how they did the person you couldn't tell which gender it was during the wedding scene. Although he/she wasn't fat, just had on a suit on one side and a dress on the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:43 pm
bluecelebi I like how they did the person you couldn't tell which gender it was during the wedding scene. Although he/she wasn't fat, just had on a suit on one side and a dress on the other. I know strange but clever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:50 pm
bluecelebi I like how they did the person you couldn't tell which gender it was during the wedding scene. Although he/she wasn't fat, just had on a suit on one side and a dress on the other. I loved that.. It was never how I imagined the man/woman character from the books but then when I saw it I thought "hey that's a really clever idea" I would die for Violet's dress, that really rocked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[ddrfreek]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/b5/4c/1c40c14474cb5_flip.png?t=1385175721_6.00_01)
