OUAT vs. Other Fairy Tales: Compare & Contrast

[Rumsy4]

42 minutes ago, Camera One said:

It has been a long time since I watched "Fringe" (I binge-watched Season 1-4 on DVDs and live-watched the final season).  I don't even remember what happened in Season 4 but I don't recall anything that made me dislike the show (I came away thinking it was a solid show, with some flaws).  What did you resent about Season 4?

In Season 4, they altered the timeline, and essentially erased all the charatcers' past histories. None of them were the characters with the quirks and histories we had seen over three seasons. William Bell became actually evil instead of the interestingly ambiguous character he originally was, and alt Phillip Broyles (Olivia's boss) did some really shady stuff, etc.. The writers were playing with concepts like "nature vs nurture" and "fate vs choice", etc.. I think the Fringe showrunners didn't expect to be renewed after Season 3, and basically had no plan for Season 4. They had this A&E-levels of "brilliant" idea to end Season 3 with, and didn't know how to come back from it. But Season 5 had a good plot, and they managed to give at least Olivia and Walter all the memories from the original timeline (which still doesn't mean they're the same people as before, but whatever). And I can pretend everything was reset to the original timeline when Walter walked off into the future with September's son (yeah--I know that sentence sounds nuts, LMAO). As a side note, the Walter-Peter relationship is one of the best parent-child relationships ever depicted on-screen. It's a highlight of the series for me. 

I think as a viewer, we get more invested in characters than writers, who tend to see them as their pawns so to speak. That causes a disconnect because the characters have become more "real" for us than for their creators. And for some reason, writers start to focus on plot more than character over time, and more often than not, it causes inconsistent characterization. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Rumsy4

[Camera One]

I loved the Walter-Peter relationship as well.  I wish I remembered what I thought of Season 4.  I actually can't remember!  I must not have been too bothered by it, though.  I did think the Alt-reality was sort of clever and I enjoyed seeing the other versions of the characters, but I don't remember which season that was.  I enjoyed "Fringe" for the character moments, but I really dislike gore, so I always watched while doing something else.  Maybe that's why I have selective memories, LOL.

Quote

I have to ask. Why do people seem to hate first person narratives? I've never had an issue with them, but I always see people complaining about that on tumblr. 

I don't hate first-person narratives, though most of my favorite books are in the third person.  If one really loves the character, then a first-person narrative can be great.  The only instance where I can say I hate first-person narratives are the newest Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew books.  

[Rumsy4]

6 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I loved the Walter-Peter relationship as well.  I wish I remembered what I thought of Season 4.  I actually can't remember!  I must not have been too bothered by it, though.  I did think the Alt-reality was sort of clever and I enjoyed seeing the other versions of the characters, but I don't remember which season that was.  I enjoyed "Fringe" for the character moments, but I really dislike gore, so I always watched while doing something else.  Maybe that's why I have selective memories, LOL. 

I watch shows where I'm not too invested, and inconsistencies don't bother me with them. So, I totally get it. haha And overall, I still do love Fringe.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Rumsy4

[Camera One]

I just looked at the episode descriptions for Season 4 and I remember enjoying the two Olivia's working together.  I think eventually, I did become impatient for getting the original versions and their memories back.  I can see why a fan who loved the characters would be even more irritated.  Another version of the character can be pretty meaningless even if it's the same actor.  Like Wish Robin, for example.  Not that I cared about Original Recipe either but I don't see how A&E could think any Robin fan would be happy with the Wish version ending up with The Split Evil Queen.  

What sucks about TWOP going off-line was that I can no longer look up what I used to think.  That has actually happened with me for other message boards that went offline too.  

[Rumsy4]

I enjoyed Anna Torv's portrayals of all the different versions of Olivia. 

Eureka was a Sci-Fi show much like Fringe, which took itself even less seriously. It did an inversion on the alternate Timeline thing, but in that case, the main characters were preserved intact (or at least most of them were). It was everyone else that had different histories and memories. They had a bit of fun playing with that, although some of the alterations didn't make too much sense. At least these shows took some risks, even if they didn't always pay off. A&E were bent on maintaining the status quo and replaying the same old character beats season after season.

[KingOfHearts]

9 minutes ago, Rumsy4 said:

Eureka was a Sci-Fi show much like Fringe, which took itself even less seriously. It did an inversion on the alternate Timeline thing, but in that case, the main characters were preserved intact (or at least most of them were). It was everyone else that had different histories and memories. They had a bit of fun playing with that, although some of the alterations didn't make too much sense. At least these shows took some risks, even if they didn't always pay off. A&E were bent on maintaining the status quo and replaying the same old character beats season after season.

I tried watching Eureka. I liked it, but Netflix took off seasons 1-3 for some reason, only leaving season four onwards intact.

[ParadoxLost]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

What sucks about TWOP going off-line was that I can no longer look up what I used to think.  That has actually happened with me for other message boards that went offline too.  

Wayback Machine archived TWOP forums. 

Quote

CameraOne on Feb-2012...I'm still entertained enough by the backstory to not mind the complete lack of plot movement in Storybrooke.

Quote

CameraOne on Feb-2013...The other problem with the Regina-trying-to-be-better subplot being reversed is that when it eventually happens again, it will be tiresome and seem repetitive, plus we would be unlikely to believe that it would stick. Ditto for Rumple.

Quote

CamerOne on Mar-2014 Don't forget Magic Wardrobe from the Very Last Magical Tree.  But who needs that when everyone and their pet cat can just cast the most horrible curse in history even Maleficent wouldn't touch.

You had a clear view of what was happening.

Meanwhile I was dumb as dirt.

Quote

ParadoxLost on Mar-2014

I'm liking Hood a lot.  Hope he sticks around.

I hate glitter dipped Rumple, but for some reason when he has the same personality sans the paint, I find it delightful.

I love everything about Hook, Charming, Emma, and Regina teaming up.  Snow was very much the fifth wheel there.

Quote

ParadoxLost on Mar-2013        
I really see no guys on this show that I like Emma with, but I find myself wanting Emma to hook up with Hook to annoy Neal    

So really saw how much I'd like CaptainSwan coming, didn't I?

Quote

ParadoxLost on Apr-2013 How many times do I need to see Regina be thisclose to becoming good until she throws a snit because she isn't instantly forgiven for the dead bodies at her feet?          

Finally, something that sounds like me.

[daxx]

14 hours ago, Rumsy4 said:

I have to ask. Why do people seem to hate first person narratives? I've never had an issue with them, but I always see people complaining about that on tumblr. 

Sometimes I like being in the characters head and sometimes I don’t. At this time when I started reading the second book I had decided that most of Clair’s problems were because Clair does stupid things and sometimes drinks too much or at inappropriate times so I wasn’t in the mood to be in her head. I’ll try it again in the future I’m sure.

[Shanna Marie]

I love first-person narration, and that's my favorite to write, too.

I don't think I want to watch the Outlander series because I read the first book, and even that one had some pretty intense stuff. In a book, you can edit your mental images, but from what I hear of the series, they really went there with some of the nastier stuff. I did the PR for the local booksigning for the release of the second book, so I have an autographed copy, but I've never read it because it starts with a big time jump and that turned me off because I wanted to pick up where the story of the first book left off. I've since learned that this was more of a prologue and it does go back to that time, but now it's been so long since I read the first book that I don't care anymore and I've forgotten so much of the first book that I'd have to re-read it.

[Camera One]

I think with the newer Nancy Drew books, they decided to go with first-person so young tween readers could "identify" with Nancy more.  But that sometimes meant giving Nancy Drew some weird and immature 21st century thoughts which were quite different from my original conception of the character.  

The type of book I dislike the most are first-person narratives that switch characters from one chapter to the next, with a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter, before it switches to someone else.   

I'm onto the sixth episode of "Outlander" and while I do find it generally engaging, I can't say it is exactly "fun" to watch.  It's kind of sad seeing someone stuck somewhere with no hope of going home.   I do like historical fiction, though, and I do like seeing the main character trying to adapt to these 18th century scenarios and interacting with people who had 18th century mindsets, so I do plan to continue on.  But then again, I've never touched the books so I'm just going by what is being shown in the adaptation.  I certainly get what daxx is saying about Claire doing stupid things, and I'm not even halfway into the first season.  It's also not the usual time travel story because it's only one time traveller and she's pretty much stuck there (I'm going to avoid all book spoilers, but this is my guess).  In that sense, it's less entertaining than something like "Timeless" where you know they will come back to the present and there's more variety in the historical periods they have to adapt to, instead of 18th century Scotland ad nauseum.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Camera One

[ParadoxLost]

I've never read Outlander because of the first person narration.  I tried years ago and couldn't do it.  I have watched Outlander but can't really think of what to add without spoilers.

I'd like to say my aversion to first person narration is some well thought out preference for the style of story telling and whether I want to be that deep into a characters head or limited to just that one characters inner thoughts.  But fundamentally, that isn't it.  Its more basic than that.  I do not like the repetitive use of 'I' in fiction.  It distracts me from the story. 

I do read stories in first person now.  But that is because entire sub genres I'm interested in have decided to no longer provide any other option.  Some of my favorite books and writers actually use first person exclusively but the number of sentences that begin with 'I" still bugs me.

[andromeda331]

I don't mind first person narration sometimes it works when your following that person's story. Their observations and reactions. I enjoy first person when its written like that. My issue is authors often forget that unless the character has mind reading powers or something the first person can't know what other people are thinking, doing or know what people are doing elsewhere where their character isn't. It doesn't work that way. But so many authors forget or ignore that part and have their character know exactly what people are thinking or doing despite not having any way to know that.                  

[Shanna Marie]

Last night I went to see my church's youth group's production of the Rodgers and Hammerstein version of Cinderella, and it was so weird. Like, Cinderella doesn't even think about murdering anyone! In fact, she's kind and even manages to make kindness rather than ridicule the trend at court. That's not sassy at all!

Somewhat more seriously, this was the first time I'd seen the "rebooted" version that's rather different than the show I grew up seeing (though the music is more or less the same). They have a resistance movement, and there's social unrest against the corrupt leadership. But they manage to work that into the story so that it makes sense. It's not some vague "resistance movement" that's never explained.

Though I will say that they managed to have a couple with less romantic chemistry than Henry and Murderella, but in their defense, we're dealing with a high school freshman as Cinderella and a high school sophomore as the prince, and while he was taller than her and had a lovely and quite mature singing voice, it was rather painfully obvious how girls and boys mature at drastically different rates, so it was almost like an adult woman with a child (and I had that impression in spite of having known "Cinderella" since she was a child). They were wonderful in duets until they had to hug, kiss, or do anything romantic, but at least their vibe was "oh, this is awkward" rather than just blah.

[Camera One]

I was looking forward to seeing the "Wrinkle in Time" movie.  But I was just reading reviews, and it sounds like they took a lot of the more complex stuff out of the movie.  Not really a surprise, I guess.  Vox had a good article listing some of the stuff left out or changed.  

It would have been a fun world to visit for an episode in Season 7 of "Once".  Maybe Mrs. Who, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Which are in the Coven.

[CCTC]

13 minutes ago, Camera One said:

I was looking forward to seeing the "Wrinkle in Time" movie.  But I was just reading reviews, and it sounds like they took a lot of the more complex stuff out of the movie.  Not really a surprise, I guess.  Vox had a good article listing some of the stuff left out or changed.  

I was wondering about this movie.  One of my favorite books as a kid, but I could see it be a harder movie to make.   Even good movies fall short for favorite childhood books.  The Black Stallion is considered a great movie, but I did not love it because I had such a preconceived notion in my head from reading the book multiple times.

I never realized there were sequels (they might have been published after I grew up).  I have always been tempted to read them, although I wonder if it is best to leave it be, since I have such good memories of the book and where the characters were at the end of the book.

20 minutes ago, Camera One said:

It would have been a fun world to visit for an episode in Season 7 of "Once".

I wonder how they would have done the redemption arc for the Man with the Red Eyes and the It.  

[Camera One]

8 minutes ago, CCTC said:

I never realized there were sequels (they might have been published after I grew up).  I have always been tempted to read them, although I wonder if it is best to leave it be, since I have such good memories of the book and where the characters were at the end of the book.

The first book is the best, I think. 

The sequels are worth reading... I don't think they detract from the first book, but they are a bit more difficult to get through.  "A Wind in the Door" (Book 2) was published in 1973 and "A Swiftly Tilting Planet" (Book 3) was published in 1978.  I don't remember the details of them, but I don't think they negatively impact the characters.

There is a fourth book, so some people consider it a quintet, but it don't consider the fourth book part of the set.  

She also wrote some books about Calvin's side of the family and other distant relatives, and those books were not sci-fi.

Edited March 8, 2018 by Camera One

[CCTC]

Thanks - Barnes & Noble had the trio in one of their classic collections.  I might have to check it out(or the library).

They were already published when I was reading the original.  I wonder how I missed that they were out there.

[Camera One]

59 minutes ago, CCTC said:

Thanks - Barnes & Noble had the trio in one of their classic collections.  I might have to check it out(or the library).

I'm curious about them since it has been so long, so I've put a hold on Book 2 from the library.  Not surprisingly, "A Wrinkle in Time" has 105 holds on 43 copies, likely because of the movie being released.  I have an old copy of "A Wrinkle in Time", but it's in a box somewhere, so I will dig it out again to re-read.  There was a TV movie adaptation from 2004, but it wasn't that good.

[Rumsy4]

I’ve the series, but I only remember the plot of the first book. Maybe it’s time for a reread.

[Shanna Marie]

I was a huge Madeleine L'Engle fan as a teen, so I think I've read them all. The Wrinkle sequels get really, really weird and go off in some strange directions. Then there are the Austin family books, which I might call the science fiction equivalent of magical realism, in that they're mostly really grounded in the real world, but there's some element of science that's critical to the plot that is more fiction than science and kind of out there. And then there are the books that intersect with Meg and Calvin as grownups and their kids, and some of the characters from those intersect with the Austin books.

Really, my favorite of hers is A Ring of Endless Light (also made into a terrible TV movie that missed the point), but I think that was because it was mostly a teen romance with science fiction elements and some deeply philosophical musings on death, and I read it when I was a teen, around the time my grandfather died, so it really hit me in the feels, as the kids these days say.

I'm really iffy on seeing the new movie. It's a book I loved, and from the reviews I've seen, the parts they've changed or cut are the parts I loved.

Hmm, looking at the Amazon page for L'Engle, it seems there are still a lot of books I've missed. I didn't realize she'd written so many. I read everything I could get my hands on as a teen, but she must have kept writing up to her death.

[Camera One]

The books had a family tree in the inside sleeve and there were lots of books, but my public library didn't have most of them.  She really mapped up a full universe.  A brilliant book like "A Wrinkle in Time" needs at last one straight-up adaptation.  It doesn't look like this one is it, though it's a shame because they actually would have the budget to make the fantasy CGI look real.  

[tennisgurl]

I loved a Wrinkle in Time as a kid, and I keep meaning to read it again before I see the movie. But, maybe if they changed so much, I should wait until after to read the book, so I can go into the movie a bit more open minded. I only read the first two books, I think they got a bit too abstract for me as they went on, as I was still a pretty young kid. Maybe I would like them more now? 

I am forever sad that Once never dipped into science fiction, beyond Doctor Frankenstein's black and white world, which I always wanted them to explore more. It would have been really cool to see our heroes in a world where magic wasn't what ran everything, it was science or aliens or stuff like that.

[CCTC]

22 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I should wait until after to read the book, so I can go into the movie a bit more open minded

I did that for the Lord of the Rings movies.  I had not read the books for 20 years (and had only read them once), so I was not focused on what they missed etc.  I then re-read the books after seeing the movies.  The Hobbit I could have gone 50 years without reading and still been irritated by the movies.

[Shanna Marie]

27 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I should wait until after to read the book, so I can go into the movie a bit more open minded.

I've learned to do that for adaptations of books I love. If the book is less fresh, I'm better able to accept the movie on its own terms. And if I still hate the movie, I can then reread the book to wash the bad taste out of my brain and restore the one, true version of the book.

But, really, adaptations are never going to make big fans of books truly happy because we all have our own versions of the "movie" playing out in our heads as we read the book, and it's impossible for the movie to be exactly like the "movie" we've already made. The adaptations we like are the ones that come closest or that are different in a way that surprises and delights us, maybe capturing the spirit of the book even if it's not exactly the movie we'd have made. I guess it helps if the filmmaker loved the book in the same way you did or loved the same things you liked about it.

One example of this for me is Stardust. I loved the book to pieces and had read it several times. There was a gap of a few years before I saw the movie. I loved the movie and felt like they made the book that was in my head, only bigger and more vivid. It was only upon re-reading the book again that I realized it had actually been changed fairly significantly in places. But it still felt like the same story. I can't really say which version I like better.

[tennisgurl]

4 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

But it still felt like the same story. I can't really say which version I like better.

Thats generally what I look for in an adaptation. I might get disappointed if they leave stuff out that I loved, but if it captures the spirit of the source material, I can usually learn to enjoy both. Like you mentioned, I love both the Stardust book and movie, even though they are VERY different, because they both have the same spirit, and the movie understood what made the book so good. Its why I hated the World War Z movie, even though it was, on its own, a decent, if standard, action movie. It clearly didn't get what made the book special, and turned something unique into something super generic. On the other hand, I loved the LoTR movies, because while they changed stuff, they understood what made people love the source material, and it still felt the same. 

Really, I dont always hate when things change in adaptation. Some things have to change because some things just work more in one medium than in another, or because of limited time and budget. Or times have changed and the differences and technology and society have to change some things (like making a cast more diverse than books tended to be in the past, or accounting for everyone having cell phones or other modern tech) or things like that, and that can be ok. I dont even always mind when adaptations totally go beyond cannon and just do their own thing, especially when it comes to books or comics or such becoming TV shows. If the show can tell a good story within the established universe, even if it didn't happen in the cannon material, thats fine. If its good, its like getting a new book of a series that was over (or taking several decades to finish) and thats awesome! Its like when American Gods became a TV show, and they added more backstory to the supporting characters, and expanded the world. That was great for me. It only becomes a problem when they change things to make them suck, to make them more "relatable to a wide audience" AKA blander than milk toast, or when they just dont care about the source. Thats where adaptations start to go downhill fast. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by tennisgurl

[Camera One]

11 hours ago, Shanna Marie said:

I've learned to do that for adaptations of books I love. If the book is less fresh, I'm better able to accept the movie on its own terms. And if I still hate the movie, I can then reread the book to wash the bad taste out of my brain and restore the one, true version of the book.

If it's a book I love, I actually make sure I re-read the book first, because I'm always afraid of movies sullying my impressions of the book or mixing myself up with what actually happened.  Usually, I watch because I'm curious how they've adapted it, what they changed/added/kept the same.  I'm usually not looking to enjoy the movie as a movie.  If it happens, it happens, but I'm not particularly looking for it to happen.

7 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Thats generally what I look for in an adaptation. I might get disappointed if they leave stuff out that I loved, but if it captures the spirit of the source material, I can usually learn to enjoy both.

 

Capturing the spirit is definitely what determines if I like an adaptation or not.  There will always be something left out, so *what* they leave out is key.  I've also watched some scene-by-scene faithful adaptations that completely lack the spark from the original book.  

Quote

On the other hand, I loved the LoTR movies, because while they changed stuff, they understood what made people love the source material, and it still felt the same. 

I too liked the LoTR movies overall because the essence of the material was still there.  Some changes bugged me more than others, but I can usually overlook that if I can see a reason for changes/omission.  "The Hobbit" was a huge disappointment, however.  It was more faithful in some ways, but the story was told in such a bland way despite high calibre actors.  Perhaps it was because the story was dragged out to three movies, which only resulted in mindless action sequences that diluted the charm of the story.    

Quote

Really, I dont always hate when things change in adaptation. Some things have to change because some things just work more in one medium than in another, or because of limited time and budget.

When I only mildly like a book, I can sometimes find the adaptation better than the original, especially if they truncate or cut out stuff that I never liked from the book in the first place.

Quote

It only becomes a problem when they change things to make them suck, to make them more "relatable to a wide audience" AKA blander than milk toast, or when they just dont care about the source. Thats where adaptations start to go downhill fast. 

It bugs me when show or film writers start talking like they know better than the original author or when they start to downplay the role that the source played in their success (because it's their own brilliance that made it a good show/film).  That is sort of what you get with people like A&E.

Edited March 9, 2018 by Camera One

[CCTC]

8 hours ago, Camera One said:

I too liked the LoTR movies overall because the essence of the material was still there.  Some changes bugged me more than others, but I can usually overlook that if I can see a reason for changes/omission.  "The Hobbit" was a huge disappointment, however.

I agree - I thought they did a good job with LoTR movies, but by the third Hobbit movie I had to almost force myself to watch it on video.  The first H movie, while not great, still stayed somewhat in the lighter adventure tone of the book, the rest of the movies they tried to make it give it a LoTRs epic tragic seriousness which was not true to the story or supported by the story.   With the stuff added to stretch it into three movies It almost has a fanfic feel to it - I think because the stuff they added seemed like LoTR-lite.  When you need to add a elf-dwarf-elf love triangle to make it a trilogy, it probably should not be a trilogy.   It could have been a fun one and done movie, it was ended up being a bloated, uninspired trilogy, that sadly might have taken a little bit away from the LoTR movies.

Edited March 9, 2018 by CCTC

[Camera One]

I was watching the trailer to Disney's The Nutcracker and the Four Realms.  This was clearly inspired by Belle falling the string in that episode.

[Rumsy4]

This is not a fairy tale by any means, but I finally watched Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express. Now, the book is one of my favorites, and one of my top Christie mysteries. Still, I decided to watch it with an open mind. It was a moderately enjoyable movie. The cinematography was pretty good, and it has a pretty stellar cast, who delivered. However, Daisy Ridley and Michelle Pfeiffer were the real highlights. Depp played Ratchet with the appropriate sleazy air, but his was a limited role by necessity. 

Now for the nitpicks. Branagh certainly does not "get" Poirot like Suchet did. He doesn't look the part, nor does he succeed in capturing the essential charm and humor of the character. However, Suchet's shoes are pretty hard to fill, and it takes some bravery to go for the part all the same. But the moustache--the Real Poirot would shudder. 

One of my biggest pet peeves is that they removed the isolation and claustrophobic atmosphere of the book by having the passengers walk about and able to interact with outsiders while the mystery was being solved. The other is that Poirot's deductive reasonings are not always clear, and sometimes his revelations seemed more like epiphanies rather than the result of careful thought. 

Also, it was a bit ridiculous to have Daisy Ridley play the part of the governess. Much as she did a great job, she was way too young for the part, even within the context of the adaptation. The end of the movie seemed to hint at other Poirot adaptations with Branagh at the helm. I'm not going to complain. But dear lord, I hope they tone down on the moustachios!

I must say though, that the Suchet adaptation of the novel wasn't my favorite interpretation either. I watched the 1974 version a really long time ago, and I remember enjoying it, even though the Poirot in it was a bit too farcical. I think I'll rewatch that next.

[Camera One]

I still need to see this movie.  I remember being disappointed in the Suchet adaptation as well.  I know it's a heavy story but that adaptation was just depressing and didn't capture the more whimsical aspects of the book.  So in some ways, I think there are any ways in which this Kenneth Branagh interpretation *could* improve.  I will also try to watch it with an open mind but based on what I've read, I'll also temper my expectations (which is always best when watching adaptations, anyway, unless they are in the hands of master writers like A&E).

Edited March 11, 2018 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Oh, I forgot to the add the most egregious blunder (to me). Poirot gets some sort of tragic love story, and he keeps staring soulfully at and talking to a photograph of his lady love, who looks as unlike the flamboyant Vera Rossakoff that the book character had a fatal attraction to. I know this is the sort of nitpick that would make no difference to most viewers, but it bothered me. :-p 

[Shanna Marie]

I loved the Branagh Orient Express, but I haven't seen the previous versions and it's been years since I read the book. Michelle Pfieffer really was amazing. She's so beautiful that it's easy to forget what a good actress she is, but she really stripped away the glam here (or had inappropriate obviously fake glam), and it was quite the performance. Daisy Ridley was good, but was a bit too young to have been the governess of someone who looked the same age.

Also, someone needs to cast Daisy Ridley and Hayley Atwell as sisters. There's something about their faces and the way they speak that always makes me think of the other every time I see one of them in something.

[tennisgurl]

I liked both the Branagh version and the 70s version (even though the book is still my favorite) but I freaking hated the Suchet version. Which was too bad, because I usually love his stories, and his Poirot is my favorite Poirot by a mile, but I thought that version was a mess. It was so damn dark, even darker than the actual story, and it added so much stuff that seemed to just exist to add drama and were just a distraction. "Oh, you wanted a classic mystery based on deduction that is rather charming as well as suspenseful? Well, have a guy blowing his brains out in the first three minutes, and a woman getting stoned to death. Neither of which have any connection to the plot Fun times!" 

[Camera One]

17 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Well, have a guy blowing his brains out in the first three minutes, and a woman getting stoned to death. Neither of which have any connection to the plot Fun times!" 

I forgot the former, but I think the latter was a clunky attempt to raise the question of justice and morality and barbarism vs. civility, or something.

[tennisgurl]

Yeah I did get what they were going for @Camera One but it didn't work for me at all. Very clunky indeed. The story itself does plenty to raise questions about justice and vengeance and whats right and whats lawful. It was so jarring. 

[Rumsy4]

34 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

I liked both the Branagh version and the 70s version (even though the book is still my favorite) but I freaking hated the Suchet version. Which was too bad, because I usually love his stories, and his Poirot is my favorite Poirot by a mile, but I thought that version was a mess. It was so damn dark, even darker than the actual story, and it added so much stuff that seemed to just exist to add drama and were just a distraction. "Oh, you wanted a classic mystery based on deduction that is rather charming as well as suspenseful? Well, have a guy blowing his brains out in the first three minutes, and a woman getting stoned to death. Neither of which have any connection to the plot Fun times!" 

The Suchet series increasingly took more and more liberties with the source material, and added many unnecessary elements. They completely butchered some of them like "After the Funeral", "Appointment with Death", and "Taken at the Flood". I don't get what they were going for other than being "edgy" and surprising viewers. Hmm...sounds familiar. Poor writers everywhere make similar mistakes...lol. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Rumsy4

[Senna]

I'd been wondering if I should check out any of the several adaptations after reading (and enjoying) Murder on the Orient Express earlier this year.  Now I know which to avoid!

[Camera One]

6 minutes ago, rogvortex58 said:

I hope not. Because that’s the story in the comics where Bane breaks Batman’s back.

That got me curious so I read the Wikipedia entry on the "Knightfall" Batman comic story.  I did find this part funny:

Quote

"Knightfall" resulted in long-term ramifications for the Batman continuity... Wayne realizes the peril and burden of attempting to work in solitude, leading to the eventual creation of the modern incarnation of the Batman family.

So Tiana learned the same lesson as Batman, LOL.

[KingOfHearts]

1 hour ago, Camera One said:

So Tiana learned the same lesson as Batman, LOL.

Tiana and Batman, as well as Mr. Incredible, Twilight Sparkle, and Starlord.

@Camera One, I think we both just came up with the most unstoppable team of loner heroes the world has never known.

[tennisgurl]

I would watch the shit out of that show. 

[KingOfHearts]

I tried watching the Pilot episode for Heathers. The movie is one of my favorite films of all time. I turned my head away from all the backlash over the role reversals, but that alone wasn't what bothered me. It was how illogical and unappealing it was. The dialogue was very inorganic with the actors regurgitating lines from the film. Sometimes, it didn't even make sense. I don't understand how overtly unappealing, brutish people can remain in power without some sort of outside force controlling everything. Even some of the worst people in leadership should know how to put on a pleasant face in order to manipulate others. That's one of my issue with OUAT. These supposedly charismatic tyrants, like Regina, know nothing about seduction. (I don't mean just the sexual kind, either.) They don't practice diplomacy or fake anything very well. They always have to rely on some crutch to keep them in power. (Magic, sand from Avalon, Rumple's protection, etc.) They don't get defeated because they make mistakes. The heroes only overcome them because of some contrivance saving the day.

Cora's the only master manipulator who did more than use jazz hands to ascend into power.

Edited March 15, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[tennisgurl]

See, thats why Mean Girls is the definitive "high school girl bullying" movie, because Regina (snerk) really could be likable and friendly, and you believed that other girls would want her to like them, even when they knew that she was really a two faced mean girl. I was in middle school when the movie came out, and so much of the girl bullying (getting someone to say something about a friend while they were listening on a three way call, doing fake compliments, talking behind their friends backs) was so recognizable. Girls dont normally just stomp around the hall telling people to fuck off, its all sneaky, and the girls who rule high schools usually are very charismatic and interesting, and that can hide their nastier side. Granted, plenty of popular kids are actually popular because they're, you know, nice and people like them, but Mean Girls certainly exist. I've considered watching Heather's, but it just looks too stupid to waste my time on. If no one says "fuck me gently with a chainsaw", then whats the point?

[KingOfHearts]

6 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

If no one says "fuck me gently with a chainsaw", then whats the point?

Actually, that line is in the show, but Veronica says it... they steal a lot of the exact same dialogue and throw it in random places. You know how OUAT's easter eggs feel lazy? Well, here we've got "Hot Probs" on a matchbox and "Big Fun" on a candy bar.

Quote

See, thats why Mean Girls is the definitive "high school girl bullying" movie, because Regina (snerk) really could be likable and friendly, and you believed that other girls would want her to like them, even when they knew that she was really a two faced mean girl. 

This is why Mayor Mills worked so well as a villain. There are women like her who actually exist. They either do their dirty work in private or get someone else to do it. They wear pantsuits, act professional in front of the public, then scheme behind the scenes to get what they want. She genuinely tried to disguise herself as a "strict but fair" single mother. It was only when no one was looking that she showed her true colors to Emma or Gold.

Edited March 15, 2018 by KingOfHearts

[tennisgurl]

Oh lord, they did the "lets take out random quotes and symbols from the original, and the people will forget that its not the same!" thing? LAAAAAME.

[KingOfHearts]

1 minute ago, tennisgurl said:

Oh lord, they did the "lets take out random quotes and symbols from the original, and the people will forget that its not the same!" thing? LAAAAAME.

They took their cues from the direct-to-DVD "A Christmas Story" sequel.

[tennisgurl]

1 minute ago, KingOfHearts said:

They took their cues from the direct-to-DVD "A Christmas Story" sequel.

Uggggg dont get me started on that childhood ruining piece of shit. Every other damn scene was like "REMEMBER THE FIRST MOVIE!?!?!" except taking out all the humor and charm the original had. 

[KingOfHearts]

I lol'ed when I heard this quote from Nostalgia Critic's review of Alice Through the Looking Glass:

Quote

Remember all those decapitated heads in the first film? It's okay, because [the Red Queen] forgave [the White Queen] for the tart! Remember that frog that was taken from his family and executed?  It's okay, because she forgave her for the tart! Remember the mass genocide, oppression, and countless lives destroyed because of every single one of these dumbass idiots? Tarts! It was all down to tarts. I think the real question is not who's the real villain, but who isn't the real villain. So yeah, things are okay apart from the countless graves.

Remind anyone of anyone?

[tennisgurl]

6 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I lol'ed when I heard this quote from Nostalgia Critic's review of Alice Through the Looking Glass:

Quote

I actually watched that review this morning, and I was actually thinking of posting the whole thing lol Yes, I couldn't even watch that movie because, just reading some reviews, I knew we were in for some Regina level bullshit. "Yeah, one of the good guys did some stupid petty thing wrong when they were a kid to the villain, so that means the good guy is EVIL and the bad guy is TOTALLY JUSTIFIED in her murder spree and being a oppressive tyrant of evil! Look how sad she looks! Just ignore the graves of all the dead innocents, focus on the tears about her tragic past!".

If its wrong to give a slow clap to a YouTube video, I dont wanna be right. 

[Rumsy4]

58 minutes ago, KingOfHearts said:

I lol'ed when I heard this quote from Nostalgia Critic's review of Alice Through the Looking Glass:

Remind anyone of anyone?

45 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Yes, I couldn't even watch that movie because, just reading some reviews, I knew we were in for some Regina level bullshit.

Same here. I read the reviews, and had no interest in watching a second Regina on the big screen. 

[tennisgurl]

Its kind of crazy how much this show has affected me. It has really messed with how I look at media all over the place.

Like, for example, I cannot stand the Lena/Kara ship in Supergirl that is all freaking powerful online, mainly because so many of their fans also shipped SwanQueen, and constantly post about how similar they are. I know its not fair, and while even beyond that much of the Lena/Kara shippers are rather toxic (the attack anyone on twitter who doesn't support their ship or harass actors who play the character other love interests) the ship itself is fine and doesn't have the many horribly problematic issues that SwanQueen has, but now that its been associated with SwanQueen, any interest in the ship has turned to total eye rolling.