|
The 1963 Lord of the Flies was an English movie, directed by Peter Brook. The 1990 one, which was in color, is the U.S. production,
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/05/there-are-so-many-differences-between-stephen-kings-the-shining-and-stanley-kubricks-film-5232328/ All these changes seem inconsequential or made for the better. Give Stephen King control over his movies and you get maximum overdrive. Or Dreamcatcher. Dreamcatcher was the single most baffling loving movie I've ever seen and I want to ask morgan freeman whose idea it was to give him prosthetic caterpillar eyebrows. One of the most dignified actors alive and you gave him the line of dialog "and what about the poo poo-weasels? You know, the ones that go in through the back-door?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/05/there-are-so-many-differences-between-stephen-kings-the-shining-and-stanley-kubricks-film-5232328/ I concur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
The success of Shawshank probably led Freeman to play in another King movie in spite of his agent's or anyone else who'd read the script's advice. I'm the chump who liked the rear end weasel book and was delighted by the amazing cast. You can (and probably already) disregard my opinions here. Snowmobile mishaps and chilly outhouse butt stuff just chilled me to the bone when I read it and I was glad to be able to see it. Magical mentally handicapped alien in human form not so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Pretty much only Frank Darabont is capable of adapting King.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:Pretty much only Frank Darabont is capable of adapting King. Cronenberg
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Apt Pupil, Pet Cemetery and Thinner are pretty decent films about Stephen King books. The Langoliers on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Cronenberg Oh yeah but Cronenberg can do anything in my book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:The Shining did ok, even though it was a slow burner. It got pretty bad reviews and a few razzies though. Because people are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:It got pretty bad reviews and a few razzies though. Because people are poo poo. It was nominated. Xanadu took worst director over kubrick. But drat I didn't know people thought it was bad at the time. I guess I'm watching this room 237 movie now to watch people talk about the shining instead of just watching the shining.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Snapchat A Titty posted:Pretty much only Frank Darabont is capable of adapting King. It's not like King writes some transcendent material, like I'm pretty sure Michael Haneke could handle it 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Stephen King is over-rated. Yes, he worte some good books, and some of them are good movies, (I like the original version of Carrie, and also the arse-weasel movie), but overall he is not deserving of the aura that surrounds him as a horror genius.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
BrigadierSensible posted:Stephen King is over-rated. Steven King writes great introductions and to an extent great stories. Shame about those endings though. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
I've enjoyed a few Stephen King films, mostly without realizing that they were based on Stephen King novels. The Running Man for instance was a dumb and fun movie, but I've never read the book. Moving on from Stephen King, if there's one thing that annoys me about movies set in the past, it's the temptation that scriptwriters have for throwing little nudge-nudge-wink-wink historical references at people. For example, James Cameron's Titanic, where one of the rich snots onboard pulls out a Picasso painting and is like "Oh, that Picasso. He'll never amount to anything."
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
BrigadierSensible posted:Stephen King is over-rated. He wrote The Long Walk. King sucks at a lot but he is god-tier at world-crafting. Dialogue, narrative, ending? Maybe not as much. But at constructing haunting scenarios that stick with you he is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
The Bachman books are all pretty decent. Well not Regulators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:It was nominated. Xanadu took worst director over kubrick. But drat I didn't know people thought it was bad at the time. If you want to watch a lunatic take The Shining apart always go with https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IoWZEwedPkc Kubrick's Gold Story The loonies in room 237 are boring and lazy in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:The Langoliers on the other hand... ...was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:If you want to watch a lunatic take The Shining apart always go with https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IoWZEwedPkc Kubrick's Gold Story Can I watch both? Right now this lady is saying this window is evil because she drew up a floor plan and it literally can't exist in the middle of the hotel. with trees and sunlight behind it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
Misery was pretty good. Pet Sematary was very, very bad. Which is a shame because it's probably one of the scariest books he's ever written.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:Can I watch both? Right now this lady is saying this window is evil because she drew up a floor plan and it literally can't exist in the middle of the hotel. with trees and sunlight behind it. A while back I wrote an essay for a film analysis course, arguing that Kubrick made the hotel somewhat of a character in and of itself, as opposed to it being just a location, and I drew heavily from all the floorplan stuff. The rest of them are loving crazy (moonlanding conspiracies and poo poo) but those bits are at least legit and show that Kubrick really put some thought into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Taeke posted:Kubrick really put some thought into it. In other news, the oceans are wet, space is vast, and Jupiter is cloudy. Now for Jim, with sports.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Apt Pupil, Pet Cemetery and Thinner are pretty decent films about Stephen King books. Light Gun Man posted:...was awesome. SCARING THE LITTLE GIRL? Also everybody should watch the Langoliers to see the CG meatballs of death. Stephen King's stories have always come across to me as like some weird example of what only works in books. They're great stories in book form, they're tense and some weird poo poo happens and it all makes sense and seems pretty scary / tense. But then you stop and try to imagine it actually happening in real life, or on a tv show, and the whole thing just completely falls apart. They're like urban legends or ghost stories. They're highly entertaining but then you stop and think about it and realize its stupid. The Langoliers and Maximum Overdrive are both amazingly horrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:The Langoliers and Maximum Overdrive are both amazingly horrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
1408 was good, too. Not particularly noteworthy, but a good adaptation and extension of the short story. Also, yeah, Dreamcatcher, what the gently caress. I liked the novel, but the movie was pretty much incomprehensible. I've always found that King is really good at writing characters and locations....plots, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Dreamcatcher needed a guy getting hit by a car to bring it all together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Depressio111117 posted:Misery was pretty good. Pet Sematary was very, very bad. Which is a shame because it's probably one of the scariest books he's ever written. Word. Pet Sematary stayed with me for weeks after I read it and honestly disturbed me. poo poo was messed up. 1408 was also really good, but I didn't like the movie. The bits it added felt like the creators didn't get what made the original so spooky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
King is really, really good at writing characters with realistic insecurities and finding ways to exploit those insecurities in very creepy ways, especially through power fantasies gone wrong. His work can also be sort of Lovecraftian at times, with books like It or Regulators/Desperation, but those are a lot more hit or miss (see: Insomnia, which had really good parts but really bad parts.) He's kinda bad at having a story hang together on its own merit outside of the central conceit. Which is really all most horror stories need. Unfortunately, they're vastly more suited to reading since the horror is fairly personal and you can identify a lot more with a character in a book than you can with one in a movie. edit: A prime example of the Lovecraftian thing working in books not movies is watching IT vs. reading IT. Tim Curry carried that movie into actually being worth watching, but the CGI spider thing at the end was laughable. Trying to put an unknowably horrific being on screen is never going to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:edit: A prime example of the Lovecraftian thing working in books not movies is watching IT vs. reading IT. Tim Curry carried that movie into actually being worth watching, but the CGI spider thing at the end was laughable. Trying to put an unknowably horrific being on screen is never going to work. That's what I mean about King's work only working in books, you can write "and then the nightmare spider monster attacked the kids with its deadlights" and its like ooh poo poo its going down, and in your head dream-logic you kinda imagine this big scary threat looming over you. But then it comes to making it into a real physical movie you're like, okay, how big is the spider exactly? Where does the spider stand? Where are the people? How long are the spider's arms? What do the deadlights look like? And the whole thing collapses instantly. Which you could then consider as a mark against the books, or you could just take it for what it is. But I think a lot of written fiction works in this "only works because you're not actually seeing it" way and mostly people don't notice as long as you're reading it. You either just read along or if you imagine it, you're imagining it in a foggy dream-like way where the physical limitations or contradictions aren't present.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:SCARING THE LITTLE GIRL?  I'm also pretty sure they were an inspiration for this character from Rick and Morty, especially since he's some sort of "Time Creature": 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:SCARING THE LITTLE GIRL? It's because he's really good at writing what the character is thinking and describing the surroundings. So much of what he writes takes place in the mind of the characters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Tommyknockers was great, but I wonder if they can actually remake it better. Misery was very good, both movie and book. Dolores Claiborne was a great book. Half and half movie. Gerald's Game, I remember wanting to read because it had some crossover with Dolores Claiborne, and ended up being the most boring poo poo I ever read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
I apparently really pissed off my best friend's step mom in high school by giving away the end of dolores claiborne? I mean I read the book, it was the first adult novel I ever read, so years later I was excited by the VHS she picked up and read the cover of in the blockbuster and I said "oh yeah this one is where she kills her husband right?" But that was the beginning. The start of the book is her at the police station saying look I did this one murder, not this other murder, here's my story... but saying she killed her husband ruined the movie? They saved that for the end for some reason? gently caress, lady, I didn't mean to.
Krinkle has a new favorite as of 23:48 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
I was watching Ant-Man at a friend's house the other day and there was a moment that took me right out of the movie with how little sense it made, but I don't think it's necessarily that irrational either.. So Paul Rudd steals the suit not knowing what it does, then while his other ex-con buddies are away from the apartment, he tries it on. They come home and he somehow activates the suit and turns really small in the shower, which they of course instantly come turn on. He gets swept down the drain, somehow falls out of the plumbing and through the floor down to land on.. a Turntable in the DJ booth at some crazy nightclub. He gets down and wanders through stomping feet on the dance floor before falling through a crack in the floor again... Into some old lady's apartment where she's vacuuming? So these ex-cons live above a night club, and that night club is ABOVE an old lady who doesn't seem to mind having thumbing beats and stomping feet above? Have the writers even met old people before? I know logically it's just an excuse to slam together a bunch of cool-looking scenes with the tiny man gimmick and put Paul Rudd in some peril for suspense's sake, but it still took me out of the action for a second because it just makes no sense that any building would be laid out this way. I guess you could say maybe that's not a night club but some kind of apartment where they're holding a party but it really doesn't come off that way in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:I was watching Ant-Man at a friend's house the other day and there was a moment that took me right out of the movie with how little sense it made, but I don't think it's necessarily that irrational either.. He walks by that apartment with bumping music at least twice before he shrinks. It's a lovely apartment building where they don't care about noise, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Speaking of Ant-man, mostly a good film and nothing too bad, I remember there being a few plot holes but I can't remember exactly what right now. For one though its getting pretty silly everybody in the Marvel universe is now aware of aliens and the Avengers but just kinda keeps to their own. Like they kinda have to find a way to do that, but its kinda impossible to write it well. They do that awkward "Can't explain what I'm doing right now sorry I guess we'll just have to fight each other" thing, even though for all reasons they should team up. Its a good thing it was just Ant-man versus the Falcon or somebody could have gotten hurt.  Just like, "look, hey, I'm Ant-man and I have superpowers, I'm trying to stop some bad guys, could we maybe be friends?" Pym is worried about the Pym particles falling into the wrong hands, but his ex-protege is the least of their concerns. What if like Thanos or the Kree gets ahold of Pym Particles?! You guys are still thinking in junior league terms here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
I don't think anyone on Earth knows about Thanos or the Kree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Ryoshi posted:I don't think anyone on Earth knows about Thanos or the Kree. Well they know about the Chitauri at the very loving least, which are pretty scary, and they should at that point assume there are other players as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Ryoshi posted:I don't think anyone on Earth knows about Thanos or the Kree. SHIELD are aware of the Kree but only in their relationship to the Inhumans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:Speaking of Ant-man, mostly a good film and nothing too bad, I remember there being a few plot holes but I can't remember exactly what right now. I don't think this was really a problem in Ant-Man, they make it pretty clear that Pym is an arrogant, stubborn jackass. It makes sense that he's not looking at the bigger picture or looking to make friends with the Avengers or anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 17:29
|
|
