I thought hers was shapeshifting only. How'd she pick up telepathy, fire bending, and ImprobableAimingSkills? As for your other point about Jennifer Lawrence, I'm just not attracted to her at all, but I can't put words to why.Zachary Amaranth said:I don't know about a lot of this. Catnap is basically Bella with "my dad is so lame" replaced by a generic contrariness. She's a cardboard cutout, a figurehead of a series about becoming a figurehead, except she never truly grows into what could be a brilliant metaphor. Lawrence seems to have captured this with her onscreen portrayal of a gender-swapped Keannu Reeves, to the point where the best parts of the movies tend to be the supporting cast.
And there's a Sam Raimi's Spider-Man parallel in there somewhere.
But the review made me laugh.
They don't, though. They leave out a lot of the context. And while Collins' purple prose isn't necessary, a good chunk of the motives are lost. Assuming you don't infer it based on a previous reading, I guess.hawk533 said:Wait, did Bob say that the first movie was made weaker by removing the "vital interior monologue"? That monologue was the worst part of the books. Suzanne Collins is not a good writer and her over-reliance on interior monologue made the books difficult to read for me. I thought the first movie was significantly improved by actually showing us what characters were thinking through their actions.
She's the Girl on Fire. Obviously, she's just using her mutant abilities.vid87 said:I would at least like to know how they've apparently scrapped together decent weaponry to fight a high-tech martial state. I mean, did she just blow up an air drone with a bow and arrow? Did it at least have a bomb strapped to it or something?
I was thinking the same thing. The only difference between Harry Potter and everyone else doing it was because that exceptionally long franchise built up a lot of good will and had much better name recognition than everyone else at the time.canadamus_prime said:I think one of the worst things to happen to modern cinema is the last Harry Potter book being split into 2 films, 'cause now everybody thinks they can do that whether it's appropriate or not.
Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.Mezahmay said:I was thinking the same thing. The only difference between Harry Potter and everyone else doing it was because that exceptionally long franchise built up a lot of good will and had much better name recognition than everyone else at the time.canadamus_prime said:I think one of the worst things to happen to modern cinema is the last Harry Potter book being split into 2 films, 'cause now everybody thinks they can do that whether it's appropriate or not.
She...ummm..borrowed the Phoenix Force. Or the Unipower. Or something.Darth_Payn said:I thought hers was shapeshifting only. How'd she pick up telepathy, fire bending, and ImprobableAimingSkills? As for your other point about Jennifer Lawrence, I'm just not attracted to her at all, but I can't put words to why.
The problem with this approach is that, preserving the story material or not, it's still dull. Deathly Hallows 1 may have allowed for more of the book onscreen, but it turned half the movie into a camping trip and could have benefited from being trimmed down. I'd also argue that most books simply don't have a good midway climax (actually, a few of the earlier books would have been better for this treatment).canadamus_prime said:Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
That's a point to. Preserving the source material is all very well and good, but some things that work in one medium don't work in other mediums and that has to be taken into account when doing such an adaptation.Zachary Amaranth said:The problem with this approach is that, preserving the story material or not, it's still dull. Deathly Hallows 1 may have allowed for more of the book onscreen, but it turned half the movie into a camping trip and could have benefited from being trimmed down. I'd also argue that most books simply don't have a good midway climax (actually, a few of the earlier books would have been better for this treatment).canadamus_prime said:Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
Source material often doesn't translate to good cinema, and I think this is a good case of it.
As a side note, I was actually a proponent of this treatment from about book three on (because the books got larger, and a few books did have a natural mid-point mini-climax of sorts). Deadly Camping Trip changed my mind. Maybe it could be done with the right movie/book, but I'm highly skeptical.
I've never agreed with you more! "Deathly Boring Part 1: Escape to Nothing Interesting" was a perfect example of why "faithful" adaptations of books to movies shouldn't be the primary goal. Movies need to be based on their own merits using their own tools to tell the tale. Not that I think "Harry Potter Takes a Mopey Holiday" was made to keep true to the text, mind, but I do argue this with those who complain about bits being cut from books in their film adaptation. Sometimes those cuts are made for very good reasons, like my sanity.Zachary Amaranth said:The problem with this approach is that, preserving the story material or not, it's still dull. Deathly Hallows 1 may have allowed for more of the book onscreen, but it turned half the movie into a camping trip and could have benefited from being trimmed down. I'd also argue that most books simply don't have a good midway climax (actually, a few of the earlier books would have been better for this treatment).canadamus_prime said:Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
Source material often doesn't translate to good cinema, and I think this is a good case of it.
As a side note, I was actually a proponent of this treatment from about book three on (because the books got larger, and a few books did have a natural mid-point mini-climax of sorts). Deadly Camping Trip changed my mind. Maybe it could be done with the right movie/book, but I'm highly skeptical.
Yeah, I mean, I'm generally one of the "the book was better" types. But at the same point, not everything that works in a book works in a movie.canadamus_prime said:That's a point to. Preserving the source material is all very well and good, but some things that work in one medium don't work in other mediums and that has to be taken into account when doing such an adaptation.
Though sometimes what they cut and what they keep are somewhat baffling. I don't remember a specific example from Harry Potter, but there were a few where I was all "what were they thinking."Gorrath said:I've never agreed with you more! "Deathly Boring Part 1: Escape to Nothing Interesting" was a perfect example of why "faithful" adaptations of books to movies shouldn't be the primary goal. Movies need to be based on their own merits using their own tools to tell the tale. Not that I think "Harry Potter Takes a Mopey Holiday" was made to keep true to the text, mind, but I do argue this with those who complain about bits being cut from books in their film adaptation. Sometimes those cuts are made for very good reasons, like my sanity.