Welcome to Gaia! ::

I don't like Ann Rice very much because she's just a little into the occult and the dark. I understand that it is very attractive, I'm just not into that sort of thing. She's a good writer, though; I'll have to see the movie.

I believe that reading the book before seeing the movie is a good idea--but that one shouldn't be tethered to the book and its 'flavor' when seeing the movie. After all, they're different artistic mediums, and logically enough one must make certain allowances on the part of the book plot to make a good movie.

One thing that really annoys me is when I see a movie with my friends, such as Hayao Miyazaki's "Howl's Moving Castle", and as we're walking out, all they (the friends) can think of to say is, "They totally deviated from the plot!" Yes, they did. But that doesn't mean that the movie, in itself, is bad as a result.

I disagree. I could personally rant on for hours about all the little details they ruined, particularly in the third movie, but I'll confine myself to two statements: One: Hermione is not the sort of person to wear a bright pink hoodie and tiny little low-riding, waist-hugging, hugely-flared jeans and a rainbow belt. Two: A werewolf looks, for the most part like a regular wolf. It does not however, look like an overgrown, mutated, deformed cross between a greyhound and a rat.

Actually the movie was quite good. For the first fifteen minutes or so. At that point in the movie-making Douglas Adams died, and the whole thing was shot to Hades. Goodbye Adams, hello Hollywood! Plot? Who needs it? Put in a laserfight, a bunch of romance, and forty-five minutes of credits and you've got yourselves a movie!
Not to mention that there shouldn't even be a love interest. Arthur and Trillian hated each other! And they certainly didn't know each other long enough beforehand for him to have her picture on his cellular-that-shouldn't-exist-either.

The So Long and Thanks for All the Fish Song was cute, though.

I can't believe I didn't think to post this question here before now.

What'd you all think of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Closer to the book than the first movie? Farther from the author's ideas?

I am now a diehard fan of this movie (awaiting the return of my application to own the official fanlisting). I loved the first movie, and really enjoyed Gene Wilder's portrayal of Willy Wonka, but I must say I think Johnny Depp's version was more like the character from the book. And no one does off-beat humor like Tim Burton, so a little more of that came through (children being taffy-stretched, juiced, sent down a garbage shoot to a furnace -- it's a little dark).

But I want to know what you think xd

That makes me think of something my friend's dad said. After watching Chocolate, Pirates of the Carribean, and Edward Scissorhands, he remarked, "You know, I still don't know what that guy looks like."

I totally agree with you on that. I'm afraid of what will happen to the fourth book! And something I don't get is this: JK Rowling slips this hints that all the Hogwarts students are wearing under their robes are underclothes, so why do the movies have everyone but the teachers wearing Catholic school uniforms with bathrobe-shaped robes. I think what Rowling means by a robe is a dress-like outfit. Like in the fifth book, when Harry is in Snape's memory. Harry's dad was bullying Snape and lifted him upside-down. Everyone saw is underwear.

Yeah, I think it's better if everyone reads the book before watching the movie. Plus, it's fun! biggrin
In books, you get to see the feelings and the scenes that wasn't in the movie.
And when you watch the movie, you're angry cause they didnt show that particular scene in the movie; then, you just laugh about it later on. sweatdrop pirate