Bullets 'n' Babes

IronMonkey wrote:

romerojpg wrote:Books do not make a good film.

What about The Lord Of The Rings & The Bourne Identity to name just two recent ones? I'm pretty sure you've said before that you like those films...

Bad examples. LOTR was significantly changed and The Bourne Identity only shares it's premise (that of a programmed assassin loosing his memory and being pursued by the CIA agency thinking he's gone rogue) and with the book. Supremacy only shares it's title with Ludlum's book.

bradavon wrote:

Markgway wrote:Imagine Zhang Ziyi as Best Actress.

She'll never win if she gets a nod though.

Thus far it looks like Rachel Weisz for The Constant Gardener will win (which will probably be the next English Patient/Piano - an overrated/boring as fuck film that swoops the Oscars).

romerojpg wrote:The reviews for the film so far have been low and not nice to it, I dont care for reviews but so far it hasnt impressed the early birds

I could have sworn that you've said on many occasions that you don't even read reviews!

EvaUnit02 wrote:which will probably be the next English Patient/Piano - an overrated/boring as fuck film that swoops the Oscars).

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

The Piano is only one of the best films ever! The power is awe-inspiring. When the musical score creeps upon you it's so powerful. The acting is superb too.

I can't wait for the UK R2 SE due out next February. It's about time all the current DVDs are pretty pants.

I assume you saw it many a moon ago?

IronMonkey wrote:I could have sworn that you've said on many occasions that you don't even read reviews!

You should know by now Romero likes contradicting himself

bradavon wrote:You should know by now Romero like contradicting himself

So true!

Not at all your just wrong. I barley ever contradict myself as you just look at comments the wrong way, or remember something wrong like on this occasion.

I said I dont read reviews for films "I want to see". I dont want to see this film at all, so I really dont give a crap about reading reviews about it, and any other films I dont ever want to see either because hell I may never see them in my life as I have films I want to see. Lots of them

I only read stuff after I have seen films ussually so they dont get spoiled, after that I will read anything at all.

BOOKs to films never mean anything at all, for the single fact that the director may well have a totally different vision to your idea of what the film should be. So your favorate book of all time may come to the screen and end up nothing at all like the book you love. Its not as if its a screen play, books are open to massive interpritation and massive changes for a film screen.

romerojpg wrote:Not at all your just wrong. I barley ever contradict myself as you just look at comments the wrong way, or remember something wrong like on this occasion.

Romero if everyone takes it the wrong way and it's just you who takes it the right way maybe, just maybe you are coming across the wrong way and maybe, just maybe you need to learn to type what you actually mean instead of what you think you mean .

Try reading back what you've just typed and see if it actually makes any sense.

TBH you usually catch yourself out by making such blanket statements as NO ONE will see MOAG which clearly is not true or I NEVER read film reviews which clearly you do sometimes.

romerojpg wrote:I said I dont read reviews for films "I want to see".

You've definitely said "you don't read film reviews" and have left it at that.

romerojpg wrote:BOOKs to films never mean anything at all, for the single fact that the director may well have a totally different vision to your idea of what the film should be.

Try telling that to the masses who will see this because of the book and let me know who listens

Never said "I dont read reviews" alone thats for sure, as I Many times explained why and what and reasons etc.. pointless going on about it really.

but still the masses flock to see films from a book they love, say Harry Potter and thats a shame if you ask me as surley they know exactly whats going to happen? I would never want to read a book, then see the film for that reason alone its going to hold no suprises at all if they stick close to the actual book you may as well be told in big words whats going to happen as it holds nothing you havent already read.

bradavon wrote:Romero if everyone takes it the wrong way and it's just you who takes it the right way maybe, just maybe you are coming across the wrong way and maybe, just maybe you need to learn to type what you actually mean instead of what you think you mean .

LOL, very well put.

Bollocks its the net, not real life. So I couldnt care less most the time.

Fair enough but then don't post saying people have got it wrong

Anyway back on topic . . .

bradavon wrote:The book was written by an American for the Western market.

I don't care if the book was written by uncle Sam...all i'm saying is that Hollywood should not make these big budget films dealing with Asian culture, IMHO.

I'll admit that Ed Zwick did a fine job with The Last Samurai...but that's it.

Hey it comes out this week in America and so far not much in the way of blocbusterness as its going up against Narnia and Kong! what were they thinking!? I guess its an alterntaive.

and as far as Hollywood making asian films, I embrace them if they are good films and dont see a problem at all in any way. The thing is there isnt exactly many examples to even see as they are rare.

I don't believe that America shouldn't make films about Asian culture anymore than Asia shouldn't make films about American/western culture. As long as they're well-made and informed... who cares where they're from? It only becomes a problem if the filmmakers make a ham-fisted mess.

bradavon wrote:I assume you saw it many a moon ago?

No. I was made to study that film last year in English class in my final year of high school. Christ if you had to pick it apart and analyse every minute aspect to death like I did you'd hate the film too. The character motivations of Ada, Bain, etc; the recurring imagery of peeping, fingers, etc; the effect created by cinematography.... AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Zhang Ziyi has been nominated for a Golden Globe.

She was nominated before the film was finished as was the Oscar votes too! they knew it was an award winning type of film loosers that they are!

Huh?
How does that even work? Surely the judges must see the finished film before they decide. Thats ludicrous.

The American film industry is indeed ludicrous these days.
I stopped paying attention to the Oscars long ago.

grim_tales wrote:Huh?
How does that even work? Surely the judges must see the finished film before they decide. Thats ludicrous.

Its called backslapping as usual and respect for elders, or someone turn to win, or the guy is old and gonna die soon so they have to give him an award now etc.. they know exactly who will be in the ruinning before the films even started filming. MOAG was touted as an Oscar contender before they had evern started filming! Awards mean nothing to me and only very strange people pay that much attention to them that they would care about them and think the films selected really deserve to be highlighted above thousands of other films.

I guessed this film would make no more than $10 million in its 1st weekend....




Crap!!!


on its 1st full release in america it made, wait for it $10.2 million bugger I feel ashamed now I was 200 thousand out bugger me gently I will now go cry myself to sleep

Hey at least I was far closer to the actual takings than any of the so called experts and they get flipping paid! now thats a job I would like as I obviosuly do it better than them. One so called expert said $30 million


Still not sure how exactly it will make its $100 million budget back if its second week isnt as good., but maybe it will play well overseas, or maybe not time will tell I guess, but I still say its no gonna do well. The Oscars are to come! and they may keep it in cinemas for extras few months till Oscar time.

I have seen this film (no spoilers btw).

I didn't think it was too great. It felt really hollow and lacked the emotional fibre required to carry the storyline through. Even the visuals were not really overly impressive.

What really disappointed me was that none of the geishas exhibited traditional qualities. It seems to me that the women have been made to look more attractive to a western audience, as opposed to representing a true geisha image.

Initially I did find the casting of Chinese actresses as Japanese characters decidedly irritating. Not only was it a question of accent (I'm not judging everyone's level of English btw, it was more than satisfactory as far as I'm concerned), but I agree with Tom and Eva - Chinese people look different to Japanese people. I've made enough friends from those two countries to recognise the difference. And I don't just mean in terms of fashion, behaviour and attitude - I mean physical differences in face structure.

It's like comparing a South Asian with a Middle Eastern... sure everyone thinks that they look the same but I can't see the similarities to be honest.

However going by the above logic, I should techincally hate most Disney films. Memoirs is made for a Western market so I just let the above arguement go. Although it still annoys me from time to time.

But yeah, I should've watched Underworld: Evolution instead...

and from the look of it like I said, its a flop

Taking into account it's a Hollywood film (and let's not forget Hollywood has covered cultures from all over the world before this is nothing new) I thought this was decent.

It was well acted, looked gorgeous IMO and kept me hooked. I suspect I'll get the DVD.

Agreed they should've at leased put on Japanese accents this wouldn't be that hard to master, they're actors. It doesn't bother me to much it was in English it's common place and isn't going to change anytime soon.

Of course it would've been better in Japanese and by a Japanese director but then it would be completely different film.

as opposed to representing a true geisha image.

Which is what?

It's like comparing a South Asian with a Middle Eastern... sure everyone thinks that they look the same but I can't see the similarities to be honest.

Which countries are you talking about as the Middle East and South Asia countries a huge range of looks.

bradavon wrote:Which countries are you talking about as the Middle East and South Asia countries a huge range of looks.

For the Middle East, it doesn't matter. You wouldn't be able to tell from which country an Arab comes solely by the way he looks. It becomes obvious to people who know Arabic when he starts talking as there are many different accents.

The many Arab countries present these days, used to be a union, one country, until 1924 I think. Just like the 50+ states in the USA these days or so.

bradavon wrote:

as opposed to representing a true geisha image.

Which is what?

It's like comparing a South Asian with a Middle Eastern... sure everyone thinks that they look the same but I can't see the similarities to be honest.

Which countries are you talking about as the Middle East and South Asia countries a huge range of looks.

Well a typical geisha would look like this:



In the film they look like this:



Now I can see why the Hollywood producers opted for the latter image. In order to sell the film, the characters needed to portray a sort of 'sex appeal' - something many westerners would find lacking if the geishas looked like the first image. I even read somewhere that the producers wanted to tone down the white powder as they felt that their target audience would find it off-putting.

Basically the geishas have been blatantly modified to appeal to the west.

As for your second question. For example say an Indian guy and an Iraqi guy. I find it pretty easy to spot the difference but I've come across a lot of people who would be like "nah they're both the same surely."