"Snob Classics" - Mike dumps on some comedies

[Petey Wheatstraw]

You must drink soooo much Surge.

SUUUUURRRRRRRRGEEEE!

Uh, no, they don't produce that soda in the United States anymore.

[Rufus T]

Here's my opinion. King wrote the better story. Kubrick provided better entertainment. I know when someone adapts a book into a film they should have respect for it. And I'll agree that Kubrick did chop alot of things out. But he was making a movie. I think everyone involved in this discussion knows you can't put everything from the book into a movie. If you want to then make a mini-series. And they did make a mini-series of the Shining. And it was a great adaptation. The characters were strong. The story kept your attention. It was a beautiful thing to see King's book get such wonderful treatment. I still like Kubrick's film more. I like it because it creeped me out. I don't watch a movie in order to defend an author. I had actually read the Shining before I saw the Kubrick movie. Yeah the differences were glaring. But by the end I didn't care. I said to myself that it was a great movie and a horrible adaptation. I thought Kubrick was great for the vision he brought to the screen. And I thought King was great because his wonderful story was the ground work for something different. And I know King himself hated Kubrick's film. And he has a justifiable reason to do so. It's just too bad he doesn't see what his original idea allowed a great director to bring to a wider audience. Kubrick wouldn't have made the movie if King hadn't written the book.

[Joe Don Faker]

King wrote the better story. Kubrick provided better entertainment... I said to myself that it was a great movie and a horrible adaptation.

That's fair.  In book/movie debates I find it best to accept that the two are totally different animals, each having different strengths.  For instance books can lend themselves to richer psychological insights into the characters, and movies to more powerful visuals.

The changes Kubrick made to the Shining story make sense:  A hedge maze instead of the animal topiary, which would have been very difficult to film in 1980.   An axe instead of a roque mallet, which just isn't as menacing on film, and can't bust through a door.

And all this just makes me want to see a Shining rifftrax. 

That kid who played Danny didn't bother pursuing a movie career, and I believe he is a science teacher in the midwest.  Ironically his is the rare child performance that doesn't make me want to chase the kid with an axe.  (Joking, please no emails.)  Another good one is that Charlie & the Chocolate Factory kid, who also passed up acting further.  Maybe the trick is to get a kid who doesn't want to be a star and spend life in front of a camera...?

[Dr.Impossible]

That kid who played Danny didn't bother pursuing a movie career, and I believe he is a science teacher in the midwest.  Ironically his is the rare child performance that doesn't make me want to chase the kid with an axe.  (Joking, please no emails.)  Another good one is that Charlie & the Chocolate Factory kid, who also passed up acting further.  Maybe the trick is to get a kid who doesn't want to be a star and spend life in front of a camera...?

Interesting theory. Maybe the career child-actors try too hard and end up hamming it up?

[PlayMSTie]

Here's my opinion. King wrote the better story. Kubrick provided better entertainment.

To my mind the better story is always the better entertainment, but that's 'cause I'm an English major.  But I do think you make a very good point. There have been movies that were good or great movies IN THEMSELVES but, considered strictly as adaptations, would have to be called less than successful. A lot of times, when watching a movie like this, I find myself thinking I would like this SO much better if they had just changed the names and some of the details so that it wasn't recognizable any more as a version of the story I had liked in the book, and was just standing on its own.

[JonnyFrag]

That kid who played Danny didn't bother pursuing a movie career, and I believe he is a science teacher in the midwest.  Ironically his is the rare child performance that doesn't make me want to chase the kid with an axe.  (Joking, please no emails.)  Another good one is that Charlie & the Chocolate Factory kid, who also passed up acting further.  Maybe the trick is to get a kid who doesn't want to be a star and spend life in front of a camera...?

Interesting theory. Maybe the career child-actors try too hard and end up hamming it up?

That theory may have merit. Was Shatner a child actor by chance?

All of this ties into my Shatner Unified Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything

[BBQ Platypus]

That kid who played Danny didn't bother pursuing a movie career, and I believe he is a science teacher in the midwest.  Ironically his is the rare child performance that doesn't make me want to chase the kid with an axe.  (Joking, please no emails.)  Another good one is that Charlie & the Chocolate Factory kid, who also passed up acting further.  Maybe the trick is to get a kid who doesn't want to be a star and spend life in front of a camera...?

Interesting theory. Maybe the career child-actors try too hard and end up hamming it up?

That theory may have merit. Was Shatner a child actor by chance?

All of this ties into my Shatner Unified Theory of Life, the Universe and Everything

Ah, the Guide.  Now THAT was a disappointing film adaptation.

[Sharktopus]

Ah, the Guide.  Now THAT was a disappointing film adaptation.

Dissapointing, yes, but not a terrible movie on its own. And let's face it, a true adaptation of Hitchhiker's Guide would be impossible. The book has virtually no plot. God forbid we get a movie with the great Douglas Adam's name on it that feels like one of those SNL sketches-turned-movies.

[Pak-Man]

Hitchhikers was exactly the same as every other adaptation: Completely different. :^)

[BathTub]

Ah, the Guide.  Now THAT was a disappointing film adaptation.

Meh, it was mostly harmless.

[Petey Wheatstraw]

Ah, the Guide.  Now THAT was a disappointing film adaptation.

It was good. Not as good as other versions of the series, but still good. My biggest disappointment though, was the abscene of this bit of dialogue:

Arthur: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
Ford: "Ask a glass of water."

My favorite line - gone! Why wasn't that in the film?

Though, what I really hate, though, is seeing it on TV. I never watch it, even though they show it a million times, because I'd hate to see it with the sides cut off. I saw it in the theaters with a huge screen and all of the image, and they pan-and-scan it in order to show it on the tiny Idiot Box. That's annoying (it would have been different had the film been shot in open-matte, but 2.35:1 is another thing).

[Sharktopus]

Most of my favorite lines didn't make it, but at least I can understand why. Most of DNA's wordplay works much better in written form (Yes, I know the Guide was a radio show first, blah blah blah...), and the filmmakers, for better or worse, didn't want the audience constantly going "Wait. What? Oh, I get it." The movie was intended for us slow on the uptake American audiences.

[mrbasehart]

Loved the musical number at the beginning.

[Sharktopus]

Loved the musical number at the beginning.

Meh. I was at the theater opening night surrounded by an audience who were completely unfamiliar with the books, etc, and my biggest hope was that at least the movie wouldn't turn them off from checking out Douglas Adams' work. And then the movie starts with inexplicably singing dolphins. The theater immediately filled with the unmistakable murmurings of "What the f*ck?"

[Famous Mortimer]

The criticism of Rushmore appeared to be just that he didn't like it. Fair enough, I suppose. I agree about Being John Malcovich being hugely overrated, but then I know people who think it's the best thing since sliced bread...which goes to show, apart from a very small few, we're never going to agree and no matter how much that article tries to make you think black is white, it ain't.