It's probably for the best that you left when you did, then. Because if that was enough to cause you to leave, you would have really hated the rest of the movie.
I walked out just after Yvaine arrived in the witches fake pub. I don't remember the goat that she turned into a person coming on to Yvaine, and it just came off as really low-brow and cheap in a fantasy movie. I just said "That's it. I can't take any more of this" and walked out.
I nitpick the shit out of movies and I didn't even notice that as something out of the ordinary.
See funnily enough, knowing NOTHING at all about the source material and viewing that trailer I thought to myself "oh sweet, it looks like it could be this generations Princess Bride!"
That is exactly what I thought of this movie as well, really enjoyed it, and was reminded of The princess bride all through the movie.
I thought it was fantastic. Best value for a movie ticket I've gotten in years. Can't wait for it to come to an HD format.
Myself and everyone I saw this with absolutely loved the movie. None of us had read the book previously, and I feel sorry for those who had and felt that the movie "didn't live up to the book".
Hello? When the hell has a movie adaption ever really lived up to the book? And if you say "Lord of the Rings" I will stab a baby. Maybe yours.
If you'd get your head out of your ass for a few minutes you might realize that this was a really fun movie, understandably modified for the medium in which it was presented. I still plan on buying the book now and reading it, to see what the original was like. But I'm glad I had a chance to enjoy both presentations.
I learned a long time ago not to expect much with film adaptations. Rather than get worked up about what isn't exactly like the source material, I just accept both as different interpretations of the same story, and enjoy them in their own way.
I learned a long time ago not to expect much with film adaptations. Rather than get worked up about what isn't exactly like the source material, I just accept both as different interpretations of the same story, and enjoy them in their own way.
That doesn't mean, however, that I can't be disappointed when what was, for me, one of the defining aspects of the story is entirely absent from the movie. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, I really did. However, a good portion of the story's original charm was lost for me, and if I pay money for it again it will only be so that my friends/family who've never read the book can see it.
You're talking like at least 10 minutes of screen time there...which when a movie has already broken two hours is huge.
This would have been a more convincing argument had the movie not included lengthy scenes never present in the book. While some of these, such as the lengthened stay on the pirate ship, were really neat, others were unnecessarily lengthy and made me squirm irritably, such as the chase scene up to the wall.
Also, it probably wouldn't have taken as long as you think. All it requires (in fact, all you were really given to go by in the book) is a mention of the last name of Victoria's suitor, a mention of the spell holding Lady Una (dropped most likely in the beginning with Dunstan), and one later reminder of the spell's wording as the events come together. One of the most frustrating parts of this is that the events did still come together in the movie, and that should have been the time consuming part. If the events are going to come together anyways, why not include three short spoken lines which tie them together and add such a unique flavor to the plot?
I understand that movie audiences are assumed to be relatively less intelligent than book audiences, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I enjoy a movie that doesn't talk down to me, even if that movie is a fairy tale. In fact, I think Neil Gaiman actually said he wrote this because "adults deserve fairy tales too." Unfortunately, they took a somewhat sublte play of words and events that was very unique and interesting and removed it entirely to be replace by one of the oldest, most generic, and most boring plot devices of all. X bad thing will end when the "bad guy" dies.
Also, when I said that the sad ending was more meaningful I was mainly getting at
the fact that Stormhold had always been plagued by bad rulers and the constant struggle for power between heirs, but now Yvaine, who made a very kind and wise queen to begin with, would rule forever and give the kingdom eternal peace. With Tristram and Yvaine instead having children and flying the coop, you're opening it up that someday it'll all devolve into the power struggle between heirs again.
I learned a long time ago not to expect much with film adaptations. Rather than get worked up about what isn't exactly like the source material, I just accept both as different interpretations of the same story, and enjoy them in their own way.
That doesn't mean, however, that I can't be disappointed when what was, for me, one of the defining aspects of the story is entirely absent from the movie. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, I really did. However, a good portion of the story's original charm was lost for me, and if I pay money for it again it will only be so that my friends/family who've never read the book can see it.
Oh, of course not. Being disappointed is a perfectly reasonable response, especially when, as you point out, there were some changes that didn't seem to be necessary at all. There are a lot of things that I felt could have been done differently (the terms of Una's bondage, definitely), but I was able to enjoy the film despite them.
I haven't read the book or even heard of it, but going just from the trailer, I'd never want to see it. It looks corny, unoriginal, and made for kids. Don't mean to flame, but, being honest.
At what point did you walk out, exactly? Not that you aren't entitled to think it sucked. I hear you. I happened to like it, but the friend I went with thought it was merely ok. But if you didn't see the entire film, it helps to know at which point you thought it was beyond hopeless and just gave up.
As for Gaiman, Stardust was the second novel of his that I'd ever read (the first being American Gods), so I can't really say I'm a huge fan. Then again, I've only read two books by Susanna Clarke, and I would say I'm a huge fan of hers. So I don't know. Not really a discussion for this thread though.
I walked out just after Yvaine arrived in the witches fake pub. I don't remember the goat that she turned into a person coming on to Yvaine, and it just came off as really low-brow and cheap in a fantasy movie. I just said "That's it. I can't take any more of this" and walked out.
I doubt this will change your mind on the movie, but the one hitting on Yvaine was the guy that the witch turned into a goat then into a girl. Unless the original goat one (Billy) also came onto her, which I don't remember.
All in all, a very fun movie. My girlfriend wants to read the book, so now I just need to find my copy.
I think of all the scenes, the one with Shakespeare singing and ...frolicking was the least necessary. I wouldn't have minded if they left that out in favor of the Una prophecy, which sounds really cool.
I think I'm the only one in existence that DIDN'T like this movie. In fact I quite despised it. I actually walked out. The only movie I've ever walked out of until now was The Brady Movie.
For one, the book's plot was subtle, but not overly complex, and the twists at the end were great.
Una revealed half that twist in the first 5 minutes! (Even if she was supposed to be sarcastic.)
Second, holy crap did they dumb down this movie. Did every character have to literally say what was happening or about to happen?
The bit where Tristan fell asleep and the stars spoke to him, telling him that Yvaine was about to walk into a trap - I CAN TELL! I HAVE BRAIN CELLS!
Ugh..
And now I'm reading bits about a cross dressing character that never appeared in the book for more than a paragraph? What the.. how in the.. ugh..
I know I'm a snob but I just feel like this movie was pandering to a lot of lowest common denominators in an effort to be accessible to non-fantasy fans. Now that I realize it, it also tried too hard to fill in The Princess Bride's shoes.
Did I say UGH yet?
I dunno, If you guys liked it that's great. I don't want to say anybody is stupid or that my opinion is implicitly superior. I just severely disliked it. I also find myself hoping I'm not the only one. Maybe there's something wrong with me? Maybe my comments will add some interesting discourse here? (Probably not.)
Everybody on these forums seems to pant over Neil Gaiman :S I read Stardust and enjoyed it, but found that even the exposition in the book was a bit too much. I'm going to stop myself here because it's probably a good thread to start in the Writer's Block.
EDIT: spoiler'd and added a bit.
No....you're not the only person who didn't like this movie. I was NOT impressed in the least. I felt that the acting was clunky, most of the gay pirate scenes were completely unnecessary, and the first third of the movie was a jumbled mess. I've never read the book, but I felt as if they were trying to fit too many things in a very limited space. I didn't walk out (because I had nothing else/better to do), but I really think my time and money could have been spent more wisely.
At what point did you walk out, exactly? Not that you aren't entitled to think it sucked. I hear you. I happened to like it, but the friend I went with thought it was merely ok. But if you didn't see the entire film, it helps to know at which point you thought it was beyond hopeless and just gave up.
As for Gaiman, Stardust was the second novel of his that I'd ever read (the first being American Gods), so I can't really say I'm a huge fan. Then again, I've only read two books by Susanna Clarke, and I would say I'm a huge fan of hers. So I don't know. Not really a discussion for this thread though.
I walked out just after Yvaine arrived in the witches fake pub. I don't remember the goat that she turned into a person coming on to Yvaine, and it just came off as really low-brow and cheap in a fantasy movie. I just said "That's it. I can't take any more of this" and walked out.
I doubt this will change your mind on the movie, but the one hitting on Yvaine was the guy that the witch turned into a goat then into a girl. Unless the original goat one (Billy) also came onto her, which I don't remember.
All in all, a very fun movie. My girlfriend wants to read the book, so now I just need to find my copy.
Your doubts were well justified I was aware of the fact that the girl hitting on Yvaine was once an adolescent male, I just got the impression that the entire reason that they changed him into a nubile waitress was for the quasi-lesbian action, and it was completely unnecessary. It was just there for the "hur hur girls making out" factor, which pissed me off. It's one thing for lesbian action to be in an action movie, or some obscure Cronenburg flick where it's both hot and believable. But jeezus christ this is some fantasy movie. I was already aware of the lowest-common-denominators they were pandering too, but that bit just made it that much more obvious.
robotbebop on
Do not feel trapped by the need to achieve anything, this way you achieve everything.
Oh, hey I'm making a game! Check it out: Dr. Weirdo!
But, uh.. they never made out or anything. There was one scene of the chick oggling Yvaiine in the bath and that was it.
I dont think that counts as "lesbian action"
It doesn't. There was nothing even resembling "lesbian action"in the movie. There was a moment of relatively subtle comedy, that's it. Yeah, he was just turned into a woman for the lesbianism, but not because it was hot, because it was funny.
As for the spell, I haven't read the book, but I doubt that it would have worked in the movie. In a movie, you have to spend an extended period of time on something like that, otherwise it seems like a stupid add-on that shouldn't be there (particularly if you aren't familiar with the source material, which a good movie won't assume that the viewer is). Better to write it off completely than to try and squeeze it in alongside the rest of the plot. We've already got someone saying they felt like there was too much crammed in the movie without it.
Posts
I nitpick the shit out of movies and I didn't even notice that as something out of the ordinary.
That is exactly what I thought of this movie as well, really enjoyed it, and was reminded of The princess bride all through the movie.
I thought it was fantastic. Best value for a movie ticket I've gotten in years. Can't wait for it to come to an HD format.
Hello? When the hell has a movie adaption ever really lived up to the book? And if you say "Lord of the Rings" I will stab a baby. Maybe yours.
If you'd get your head out of your ass for a few minutes you might realize that this was a really fun movie, understandably modified for the medium in which it was presented. I still plan on buying the book now and reading it, to see what the original was like. But I'm glad I had a chance to enjoy both presentations.
I'm not too bothered, though.
That doesn't mean, however, that I can't be disappointed when what was, for me, one of the defining aspects of the story is entirely absent from the movie. I enjoyed the movie for what it was, I really did. However, a good portion of the story's original charm was lost for me, and if I pay money for it again it will only be so that my friends/family who've never read the book can see it.
This would have been a more convincing argument had the movie not included lengthy scenes never present in the book. While some of these, such as the lengthened stay on the pirate ship, were really neat, others were unnecessarily lengthy and made me squirm irritably, such as the chase scene up to the wall.
Also, it probably wouldn't have taken as long as you think. All it requires (in fact, all you were really given to go by in the book) is a mention of the last name of Victoria's suitor, a mention of the spell holding Lady Una (dropped most likely in the beginning with Dunstan), and one later reminder of the spell's wording as the events come together. One of the most frustrating parts of this is that the events did still come together in the movie, and that should have been the time consuming part. If the events are going to come together anyways, why not include three short spoken lines which tie them together and add such a unique flavor to the plot?
I understand that movie audiences are assumed to be relatively less intelligent than book audiences, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. I enjoy a movie that doesn't talk down to me, even if that movie is a fairy tale. In fact, I think Neil Gaiman actually said he wrote this because "adults deserve fairy tales too." Unfortunately, they took a somewhat sublte play of words and events that was very unique and interesting and removed it entirely to be replace by one of the oldest, most generic, and most boring plot devices of all. X bad thing will end when the "bad guy" dies.
Also, when I said that the sad ending was more meaningful I was mainly getting at
edit: and you can't even tell what the plot is
B.net: Kusanku
I doubt this will change your mind on the movie, but the one hitting on Yvaine was the guy that the witch turned into a goat then into a girl. Unless the original goat one (Billy) also came onto her, which I don't remember.
All in all, a very fun movie. My girlfriend wants to read the book, so now I just need to find my copy.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
No....you're not the only person who didn't like this movie. I was NOT impressed in the least. I felt that the acting was clunky, most of the gay pirate scenes were completely unnecessary, and the first third of the movie was a jumbled mess. I've never read the book, but I felt as if they were trying to fit too many things in a very limited space. I didn't walk out (because I had nothing else/better to do), but I really think my time and money could have been spent more wisely.
Time Bandits meets The Witches of Eastwick?
Your doubts were well justified
Oh, hey I'm making a game! Check it out: Dr. Weirdo!
I dont think that counts as "lesbian action"
It doesn't. There was nothing even resembling "lesbian action"in the movie. There was a moment of relatively subtle comedy, that's it. Yeah, he was just turned into a woman for the lesbianism, but not because it was hot, because it was funny.
As for the spell, I haven't read the book, but I doubt that it would have worked in the movie. In a movie, you have to spend an extended period of time on something like that, otherwise it seems like a stupid add-on that shouldn't be there (particularly if you aren't familiar with the source material, which a good movie won't assume that the viewer is). Better to write it off completely than to try and squeeze it in alongside the rest of the plot. We've already got someone saying they felt like there was too much crammed in the movie without it.