Thursday, March 30, 2017

Hollywood Screw Ups

When Hollywood adapts a novel to a film, the average is to bet on the adaptation SUCKING. Lord of the Rings is an outlier, and Harry Potter was mostly faithful because they didn't want to get torn apart by a legion of angry ten year olds.

But mostly, you're better off just running. The Relic, Shooter (the film), The Bourne Identity (the films were so two dimensional) and the list goes on.

Now what fresh hell has been unleashed on us?

I give you.... Disney.
There's Cars 3 .... because everyone loved one and two so much (hint: It's the only Pixar film I can't find anyone to say a nice word about)

Because they're bringing back the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

Really? The abomination of the second and third films weren't enough for you? And no, you couldn't drag me to see any of the films after that. You would literally have to pay me to review that drek. I mean literally. If I can get an offer, I'll start a kickstarter. I'll do a review.  And, apparently, Orlando Bloom's career sucks so badly right now, he's been dragged back into this film. Either that, or the franchise has been going downhill so badly that they had to back up the dump truck filled with money to pay his salary.

Next, they're doing a live action Mulan....

Yes. Because every review of Beauty and the Beast I've seen from people I trust has been less than positive -- or, at best, showed me that, yes, this was a totally unnecessary remake. They even made it with A LEAD ACTRESS WHO CAN'T SING. So now we're going to have yet another unnecessary remake.


And then we're going to have a sequel .... to Mary Poppins. Yes, you heard, Mary, flipping, Poppins. The genius title? Mary Poppins Returns.  Really? It took fifty years to think up this title?

And who do you get to replace Julie Andrews?
The film stars Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins,

Yeah. This is Emily Blunt

I suspect that her choice was based on the type of drugs the casting guy was on.

And the plot? Oh, you're going to love this one. Remember Mary Poppins right? A distant father hires a nanny to deal with his troublesome kids. Hilarity ensues.

This one?
Set 25 years after the original film, and taking inspiration from later books in the Mary Poppins series, the film will see Mary Poppins revisiting the Banks family after they suffer a family tragedy.
The film opens Christmas Day 2018.
Family tragedy! A surefire Christmas film.

"Oh, but it's based off of later books!"

If you'll turn your attention to this corner, you will see a brief synopsis of each book in the series. You will note that there is nothing that even remotely resembles a tragedy.

So, shut up, Disney.

Finally, worst of all, they are making (read: they will screw up) A Wrinkle in Time. 

A Wrinkle ... in Time.



Why do I say that? Because the author, Madeleine L'Engle basically wrote a YA novel that is essentially Christian...

Remember the last time they did one of those? Oh yeah, Narnia.

This is going to suck.

Seriously. Go to Hell, Disney. Straight to Hell.

Here, have some books that are more cinematic than most Hollywood films lately.

And they're cheaper than a movie ticket.

The Love at First Bite series. 



  1. *I stated some of this with you elsenet but..what the hell. why not?] Hey I like the relic. *penelope ann miller...ohhhh yeah* Between my pops and I we own I think 3 copies of Point of Impact which Shooter is based on. Dad actually likes it. who of thunk. Also huge clancy fans. Loved Red October and Patriot Games and would have cheerfully committed mass murder over sum of all fears. [seriously> Ben Affleck? feckless idiotic fuckstains!] Dad also oddly adores the Bourne movies. I personally got bored after the first one but..*shrug* he likes em so we own em all. Pirates? I love em. So yeah as stupid as I think this was..I'll see the new one. though I might wait til it hits the dollar cinema. Mulan? didn't give two shits about then, or now. Mary Poppins. I LOVE the original of all the early disney films made, outside of Aristocats and Robin Hood it is by FAR my favorite. [I own all 3 of those in both VHS AND DVD]jesus fucking h christ. the time to have done a sequel would have been ohhhh...20-25 fucking years ago when Julie Andrews could still play the fucking part! A Wrinkle in Time...I'll reserve judgement but given most of what they've been churning out under the Disney name of late....

  2. It has to be better than the TV version of "A Wrinkle In Time".... Doesn't it?

  3. John and I actually really liked the fourth movie.

  4. Harry Potter was mostly faithful because they didn't want to get torn apart by a legion of angry ten year olds.>

    You misspelled "Rowling's team of lawyers" as "angry ten year olds".

  5. I would argue your point about the Lord of the Rings movies. While the soundtrack and scenery were excellent, they ruined almost every single character. About the only exceptions that immediately come to mind are the Nazgul, Saruman, and (to some extent) Wormtongue. Most of the other characters were butchered by infusion of varying levels of modern ideas.


Please, by all means, leave a message below. I welcome any and all comments. However, language that could not make it to network television will result in your comment being deleted. I don';t like saying it, but prior events have shown me that I need to. Thanks.