Do you think the amount of Razzie nominations
-
jakubmike — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 11:41 PM)
Stephen King can go and beep himself, sorry but I have never seen a writer soenamoured with himself and his own style. Most of his books are all talk and no substance. Even Koontz is better, sure he is very conservative but at least he is telling a story and not fanwanking at his own writing.
-
yukio14 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 05:28 PM)
erm i don't know if you ever write a story before
but imagine if you make a story that you put your life into it
and you feel it's a perfect story
then came a long some guy and took just some small bits and ignoring the most important things of your story
the guy make it into a movie and called it an adaption
how you'd feel about it?
king maybe just a dick in your opinion, but at least you need to understand
why he didn't like it when someone make a poor loose adaption of his novel
ORE GA NIPPONJIN JANAI! -
CichlidAsh — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 01:05 AM)
that 'somehow' was when you got Stephen King said these about the film
"Kubrick made a film with memorable imagery, it was poor as an adaptation and that it is the only adaptation of my novels that i could 'remember hating'.If you have seen the movie but not read the novel, you should note that Doctor Sleep follows the latter which is, in my opinion, the True History of the Torrance Family."
"
While I enjoyed Stanley Kubrick The Shining and would list it as one of the better horror movies ever made I can fully understand why Stephen King would hate it as it butchers the story from the book and totally misses the whole point of the original story completely. Kubrick version is about madness while the original story is about alcoholism. Still both versions can stand on their own merits it must have been brutal on King to see one of his best stories changed so much. I would think that anyone who tried to read Dr Sleep (good sequel btw) after only watching The Shining as a movie would be totally confused as to what is happening because the original story was changed so much. It would be great to see Dr Sleep adapted to film but it would be impossible without remaking The Shinning and sticking to the original story.
To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script -Alfred Hitchcock -
yukio14 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 05:45 PM)
yeah the shining movie is good horror, but i feel it shallow
not in the film story
but the lore in the story
not because i didn't understand or have lot of questions
i didn't know how to say it
it just, when the movie end
i just like "that's it?"
maybe i should read the book to understand what i feel about the movie
well.. with the trend on hollywood right now
i bet some people already on the talk to make the shining remake
ORE GA NIPPONJIN JANAI! -
CichlidAsh — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 06:04 PM)
If you have not read the book then I would highly recommend doing so as the book and the film is quite different while still sharing some similarities. For me personally the book is much better than the film but then again I almost always like books better. If you do read The Shinning then I recommend Dr Sleep as well just so you can get the complete story.
To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script -Alfred Hitchcock -
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 08:51 AM)
For me, it's more about the quantity of accolades and praise rather than one specific accolade. For example, Citizen Kane has been widely regarded as one o the greatest films of all time, yet has never won an Oscar. So its lack of an Oscar does not mean it is a bad film, since it has been widely praised elsewhere.
The highest award BvS has gotten has been one nomination at the Critics Choice Awards, and the other awards it's been nominated for have either been meaningless (Teens and People Choice) or straight-up insults (Razzies). It's the combination of a lack of accolades, as well as the poor public and critical response, that leads to the conclusion that BvS is a bad movie. It's not just any specific award, but all of them.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
CichlidAsh — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 09:24 AM)
Oh I don't think that a lack of an Oscar is an indication of a bad film Deadpixel for me that would be the Razzie nominations that would be a indication of that. The lack of Oscar nominations was more of an indication that BvS may not be quite the masterpiece that some of the fans of the film where making it out to be. Even winning an Oscar is not always an indication that the movie it self is quality like if SS wins best hairstyle then it wont indicate its a good film but simply that it had good hairstyling. I also personally don't even like a few of the movies that have won best picture Oscars in the past but maybe it still indicates that maybe on some level this film has some level of quality to it even if I personally don't like it. I am also not trying to indicate that the Oscars or Razzies should be the only indication of quality but simply that they add more validation to peoples claims. We all know that the critics already panned the movie and a lot of people were very disappointed in it.
To make a great film you need three things - the script, the script and the script -Alfred Hitchcock -
deadpixel128 — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 01:35 PM)
I think we're on the same page as far as the principles go, but for me, just pointing to one specific award is kinda foolish. The Oscars, at the end of the day, aren't really any more important than any other awards show. Saying a movie is good only because it won an Oscar isn't a very strong argument. Same goes with saying a movie is bad simply because it won a Razzie. But if a movie has won a large number of awards and has seen widespread acclaim from critics, then it would be safe to say that the film is good. Likewise, if a film has been lambasted by critics in addition to Razzie wins, then it would be safe to assume the film is bad.
I just don't view any given award as more important than any other award.
If you can't defend a movie without bashing another, you will be put on ignore. No exceptions. -
Fluffis — 9 years ago(January 29, 2017 01:44 AM)
Citizen Kane never won an Oscar, and Kubrick got nominated for a Razzie for The Shining, somehow.
Those were misunderstood great movies. Citizen Kane was also surrounded by politics - both studio and actual - which affected it adversely. BvS is a well-understood bad movie.
Back then it took longer for people to start analysing movies that were considered bad, than it does now - the logistics were completely different, with writing and dispersion of ideas taking much longer. The focus was on analysing the great ones. Nowadays, it's a quicker process and the critics and audience can get around to analysing the movies that are considered "bad" faster -
much
faster. Meaning it's a quicker process to find the hidden gems among the dross, and to confirm the "bad" to actually be bad.
Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.