Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
@Ibmiller: Porn with sex would surely simply be... porn?
Also someone who only very slightly looks like you will play you in the fourth film.
Like in Underworld!!!
How are they getting away with movie rights? Also, what kind of rating are they shooting for? I mean, the whole point of Twilight was kinda that it's porn without sex...but what happens if you remove the "out" part? Is that even a film?
It used to be Twilight fanfic, and now it's an actual book you can buy in a store.
And it's going to be a movie too. Super.
Also, am I the only one who thinks the picture quality in that montage of everybody's eyes starting to glow is really, really bad?
I guess it's because the montage is cobbled together from stock photos from various sources.
Arthur: I like how they try to imply that the characters aren't all a big homogeneous lump of Midwest whiteness.
... Which strikes me as a little bizarre. I mean, isn't the standard apologia for Hollywood's horrible white-centrism that movies about people of color won't appeal to mainstream (white) audiences? Also, am I the only one who thinks the picture quality in that montage of everybody's eyes starting to glow is really, really bad?
Dan: I'm kind of down on XKCD these days, but I thought this one was quite funny.
So do I. Ahh, formal logic jokes.
Except I wasn't impressed by either Gattaca or Simone, so I think the director will prove something of a liability.
And it's being released in March (what is up with high profile adaptations dropping in March this year and next, anyway?). Which is a sucky month - even if Hunger Games seems to be defying the trend.
Plus, what is up with the casting. I mean, Ronan is quite good, but she seems much more suited to Wanderer's
Although the one before was the usual lolrandom bullshit.
So why not animal Hamlet with a happy ending? (Also, there's a suck-up counselor
in both, for another mark in the "squint or miss them" parallels. Though he
doesn't die either in Disney's version.)
I guess I feel like "Prince turns into a frog" is enough to make it the Frog Prince because that's the hook there. (The princess didn't turn into a frog in the original, of course, but it's been done many times since.)
Where as with Hamlet the whole thing is about Hamlet being ordered by the ghost of his father to kill his uncle for usurprising the throne, and him working up to doing it. The Lion King is about a lion who mistakenly feels guilty about his father's death, grows up in the wilderness with a couple of guys and returns to the claim the throne after the evil Uncle's taken over.
It's not just the happy ending, it's that I can barely see anything in common in the two stories, particularly since "exiled prince returns to claim throne from usurper" seems like such a common trop in itself.
I had a cousin who loved Kimba, btw. When that movie came out my aunt was all about how it was Kimba.
As far as the Hamlet parallels, I think it isn't much looser an adaptation as some of the others, if that's what they really were thinking. Eg, I haven't seen the Princess and the Frog yet, but from what I've heard, it has very little in common with the original tale except the prince-turned-frog part. Not that it could be, the original being so short, but I think "wannabe restaurant owner in New Orleans" is a bit of a stretch from the original "princess with a golden ball," and I don't remember the princess turning into a frog first. (The end of The Frog Prince, Continued, yes, but that also sounds not quite like what Disney did.) So why not animal Hamlet with a happy ending? (Also, there's a suck-up counselor in both, for another mark in the "squint or miss them" parallels. Though he doesn't die either in Disney's version.)