1. What does a book made in 1912 have to do with a movie made in 2012? Directors take creative liberties to improve source material they're working on all the time.
2. Why should I care about the reasons for why the movie was filled with cliches? If the book the movie was based on was a piece of shit, am I supposed to forgive a movie that is based upon that book for being a piece of shit? Of course not.
Because you referred to it as shit with the implication being that if it was as cliché' as the movie, it was also shit, you stupid fat ****.
I have not watched the movie, but I agree. Changes are made for film to improve the experience.
It is why characters in Lord of the Rings did not speak in verse, and it is why five hours of the movie's run time wasn't dedicated to exploring every nook and cranny of Moria's mountainside.
Oh lord, I could go into why Disney's poorly casted and unlikeable John Carter sucked balls compared to the books all day, but this is not the place for it.
ON TOPIC:
Hahaha, I just saw this: A woman named Lani Minella is credited on IMDB now as being a Judi Dench sound-alike. Either they couldn't afford Judi Dench or she wasn't available... heh, probably the former.
Originally posted by Robtard
This is why you're a dunce: You said "looks awesome!" (pg1); it's all good. I said "looks meh" and you cry.People have different opinions; you don't have to cry if they don't agree with yours on one of your favorite franchises/characters. You did(and still do) the same exact crying when people didn't go balls deep like you did over Prometheus. Like it's your baby or some shit.
Do we need to bring up your John Carter fiasco where you predicted it was going to be some spectacular film cos of the previews and then it turned out to be a turd? Do we?
You are an incredible internet douche, and I refuse to justify any of your bullshit with a response. Get a life, bro.
^ "Derpy Derp." That's all I understand from you. Get over your ego, negro. 😉
Thought this was cool: I remembered this Riddick 3 preliminary image from a LONG time ago (if fact I think it might have been the first image I saw for Riddick 3)...
Well, I recently came across this photo on facebook: The caption is "A Supercell Thunderstorm Cloud Over Montana
(Image Credit & Copyright: Sean R. Heavey)"
Looks like they might have been doing a little bit of visual research into strange and fascinating storms for the film. Very cool.
Originally posted by RobtardThis from the guy who says reporting people is stupid. Butthurt. Also
You do realize thread-stalking for the purposes of derailing is a bannable offense? Granted, Imp's relaxed and most likely won't do it, but there are other mods in here and I'm pretty sure you might already be on PR's shit list.
Originally posted by Patient_LeechYou are the one tard mucking it up not me.
^ More "Derpy derp-derp" nonsense. Damn, does the 'tard every say ANYTHING that is even remotely interesting?? It's just a constant flow of bullshit.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
1. What does a book made in 1912 have to do with a movie made in 2012? Directors take creative liberties to improve source material they're working on all the time.2. Why should I care about the [b]reasons
for why the movie was filled with cliches? If the book the movie was based on was a piece of shit, am I supposed to forgive a movie that is based upon that book for being a piece of shit? Of course not. [/B]
I think the biggest factor to liking John Carter as a movie is to have had read the novels as a kid.
I read all the John Carter stories as well as Tarzan when I was 14/15 ...so to finally see JC on the big screen was like a childhood fantasy come through.
I even appreciated the nod to Edgar Rice Burroughs as a character in the movie...that to me, showed the utter respect the director had for both author & character.