Well, I had a really bad f*cking Monday. Anybody else? Anywho, I felt I would take some frustrations out on fandoms and see how many people I can piss off (bring on the crazy).

- Let's start with Twilight. The director taking over for the second film isn't going to be able to direct the third film. Why? Because they're trying to pound the money out of the series before all the teen girls forget about it in about a year. They're gonna start filming while the second is still in post-production. The second film is to come out this November. The third film is to come out in June or July of NEXT YEAR. They're not even separating two films by a year, and they're not filming simultaneously, either. They're gonna rush the third one. Not that I care. But a lot of the fandom do. But you know what? There's not enough plot for them to destroy. The books are bad and terribly rushed and edited to begin with, so if they make a bad film that was rushed and poorly edited, I'd say they stayed pretty close to the books (after all, each book was published within a year of each other, which means each was written in about the same time as they'll take to make the film).

- Next... Harry Potter. So I keep reading how people bash David Yates and praise Alfonso Cauron and beg for him to come back. I can understand that if you're basing your opinion on the overall magical look/style of the picture. But no, these people are basing it on the fact that they believe Yates made a bad adaptation because he cut so much from the book and Cauron didn't. Have these people both read the books and seen the films? Cauron made, by far, the worst adaptation in terms of sticking with the book. Cauron cut out the entire PLOT and PURPOSE of the book, added in random and useless things (including some pointless slapstick and talking shrunken heads), and got continually warned by JK Rowling because he wanted to change the plot completely, which would have ruined any chance that the future books could have been adapted into films. He also ruined the fourth film, because he talked Warner Bros. into making it short and choppy, even though he wasn't even involved.

Yates, on the other hand, took the largest book with almost no plot, cut out all the things that weren't relevant to anything (Quidditch, for instance, which took up half the book), and made it coherent and meaningful, telling all the important details in the book in a little over 2 hours. And it looked good stylistically. So if you're a fan of the movies and not the books and liked Cauron because his film looked good... fine. But you can't be a fan of the books and say Cauron made a more faithful film than Yates (who, outside of Chris Columbus and his page-for-pagers, made one of the closests damn adaptations of the films).

- So I finally finished reading Watchmen yesterday (Sunday). It took me about 2-3 months to get through it... not because it was bad, but because I kept getting distracted with other things. Anyway, I really enjoyed it, and I can't wait for the movie in a couple weeks. But while I was reading it, I kept seeing stuff on the internet that was like "OH EM GEE THEY CHANGED THE ENDING IT'S GONNA SUCK NOW!" Now that I've read the graphic novel, I looked to see the ending of the movie (if you haven't read the graphic novel and/or don't care to read the ending of the movie, STOP READING NOW).

So in the graphic novel, half of New York is blown up because one of the characters scientifically constructs a giant squid monster that uses the brain of a human psychic and uses a partially functional teleportation machine to transport it, which triggers its psychic explosion. In the movie, half of New York is blown up with nuke-like devices to frame Jon/Dr. Manhattan. Both are done to stop the war and bring peace. Both succeed. But the fans are like "NO GIANT SQUID THAT GOES BOOM? BLASPHEMY!" Who the fuck cares? Hell, when I read the novel, I couldn't stop staring in disbelief at the pure, over-the-top silliness of that whole part. It almost destroyed the rest of the novel for me. I actually really like what the movie is doing instead, as it focuses it back on the characters, making it more realistic (as realistic as Watchmen can be), and just keeps it along the same lines as the feel of the story was up until that point in time. The only thing I don't like is that I heard a rumor that the Rorschach diary twist at the end of the book isn't included in the movie, which is the part I do hate, because that's what really made the entire book for me. That's what made it complete and pure awesome. And if they leave that out... that's just lame. I hope that isn't true.

I think that's all I have to say for now.


  1. I can't believe they wouldn't shoot the two Twilight sequels back to back. That is stupid to have the third film be directed by yet another director. Luckily, I could care less. I thought Twilight was horrible.

  2. Ouch! I think I’m bleeding from the Twilight evisceration. I enjoyed the books and the film as light entertainment. In fact, mostly because my best friend is a fanatic, I have seen the movie four times and enjoyed it the same each time. For me the way the studio is handling the films is a tragedy because Twilight brought to light that women would lay out large sums of money for movies. If the studio rushes out the next two movies with even less attention than the original then they will take back the power I gained as a women this year in Hollywood. And to get a little hostile I am tired of men bashing this movie. In my 42 years of being a female movie fan, I have put up with a lot of male centered drivel in the theatres.

  3. Girodet: You misunderstand me. I enjoyed the movie (and, to a degree, the books). I actually thought the movie was a really good adaptation of the book.

    However, that doesn't stop the books (or movie) from being pretty awful. Personally, I'd try to find better priorities... if you're finding feministic success in the success of the TWILIGHT movie... that's almost counter-productive. Twilight is incredibly anti-feminist and misogynistic, and actually takes away what feminists have worked for. And to have so many women rooting for its success takes you all back decades.

    But please do not connect my first and second statements. I did not enjoy the books/movie because of its anti-feminist rulings. In fact, that's one of the reasons I highly dislike the series (outside of its God-awful writing).

  4. A movie doesn’t have to be feminist for a woman to defend it. The Piano was supposedly a feminist movie I should get behind…hated it with a passion. The feminist in me actually detested the movie Once. Yes, there are valid points you have brought up about these stories. However, I find it interesting that movies that have a female slant to them are dissected by the media. The Brave One is one kick ass revenge movie helmed by a woman. The critics went nuts about that movie. Twilight is an over the top romance and once again the critics are having fits. My jaded, married with children sister loved the movie and specifically loved the over the top heat between the characters. My friend who is in her sixties liked the movie. Went to a showing recently and there were a bunch of senior citizen couples in the theatre, adorable. I guess in the end I can respect a movie that is honest about what it is. I detest subversion. I have no problem with strip clubs, however detest Hooters. And don’t even get me started on Knocked Up or Superbad.

  5. Girodet: A couple things with strong female leads that are loved by almost anyone? Kill Bill and anything by Joss Whedon.

    The only reason I brought up the feminist point is because you were making a point that the success of Twilight is a success for women in a mostly male-dominated medium (a feministic viewpoint). However, I just meant that it's a counterproductive success, as while it might be a success for females in that it makes money, it's sad (and quite ironic) that it's THIS that makes money, as it represents everything that feminists work against.

  6. I guess I object to the idea that a movie has to be feminist for a woman to get behind it. Woman love romance. You know who does great romance James Cameron, Titanic is the obvious example. However, The Abyss has a great romance between Virgil and Lindsey. Then of course the original Terminator. That scene when between Sarah and Kyle in the hotel. I will rewind and watch that over and over. “I came across time for you Sarah. I love you; I always have..” By the way, I hope your Tuesday goes better than your Monday!

  7. I still think you're missing my point (or maybe I'm just not explaining it clearly).

    It isn't that a movie has to be feministic for a woman to get behind that I'm talking about. It's that women with feminist beliefs are getting behind an anti-feminist story.

    Whether or not a movie is feminist for women to love it has nothing to do with it. My point is that this particular story is ANTI-feminist, and feminists are rooting for it because it is a romance that made a lot of money. It doesn't make sense.

    Otherwise, I agree with everything you're saying (that a movie doesn't have to be feminist for females to love it).

    However, I could get into the shallowness of the romance in Twilight (which furthers the bogglement), but I'll refrain :P .

  8. I understand they want to bank on the success but don't know if that is the right strategy. I like how LOTR did their, film all at once and release one each year, worked for them and was very smart. This may just completely rush things too much. People are still seeing Harry Potter, they won't forget Twilight if the movies are good.

  9. www.psychicsquid.com !


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.