His Charlie & The Chocolate Factoiry was far more faithful to the original book than the awful Gene Wilder version (which Roald Dahl despised) and got the seal of approval from Dahl's widow, Liccy, (which I believe the release of the film hinged upon).

So given that the Dahl estate were happy with it, that they thought it did justice to the original book then I fail to see how it can be classed as a travesty to literature.

At the same time Morrissey said he loved T.A.T.U's cover of 'How Soon Is Now?' when it was really quite bad.

g4, postmodern in terms of setting and appearance as opposed to scriptually or thematically.

At the same time Morrissey said he loved T.A.T.U's cover of 'How Soon Is Now?' when it was really quite bad.

That is an entirely irrelevant point.

Dahl was furious with the original Charlie & The Factory film and refused to sign over the rights of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator to the same people. That made it abundantly clear to people that respecting the original story was paramount in his thoughts. This mind set was maintained by his widow who has gone on record to state that Burton was the only potential film maker to understand the original story and give his adaptation the thumbs up.

She felt it did justice to the story, this means she felt it was not a travesty to the script she was protecting and that Roald Dahl felt so protective of.

Morrissey liked the cover. That makes it clear he wasn't concerned with it being faithful to the original. If it was faithful to the original then it would just be a copy as it is the same art form.

The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, film. A disappointment for me having just finished the book, it didn't stay faithful to the book, even though Douglas Adams penned the screenplay. And, Ford Prefect isn't black. Marvin is perfect, however.

That is an entirely irrelevant point.

Dahl was furious with the original Charlie & The Factory film and refused to sign over the rights of Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator to the same people. That made it abundantly clear to people that respecting the original story was paramount in his thoughts. This mind set was maintained by his widow who has gone on record to state that Burton was the only potential film maker to understand the original story and give his adaptation the thumbs up.

She felt it did justice to the story, this means she felt it was not a travesty to the script she was protecting and that Roald Dahl felt so protective of.

Morrissey liked the cover. That makes it clear he wasn't concerned with it being faithful to the original. If it was faithful to the original then it would just be a copy as it is the same art form.

Clearly you know more about this case than I do, but I feel it is a travesty in that Burton turned something which was a veritable joy to read as a child into something very much less enjoyable, even painful to sit through.

Plus an author's child's connection to the book is going to be far less than that of the author. Try asking Paris Hilton how to run a hotel company, or Charlie Sheen how to play a good Captain Willard or President Bartlet, for example.

Widow not daughter.

That aside you have made another irrelevant point.

Watching a film and deciding if it is a faithful representation of a text that you know very well is an entirely different thing from being to run a multi-national hotel chain. The comparison between Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen is also irrelevant. Nobody is saying his widow had to write the book again!

Was it as awful as Green Street Hooligans?

Its alot worse.

Awaydays is just abysmal.

Widow not daughter.

That aside you have made another irrelevant point.

Watching a film and deciding if it is a faithful representation of a text that you know very well is an entirely different thing from being to run a multi-national hotel chain. The comparison between Charlie Sheen and Martin Sheen is also irrelevant. Nobody is saying his widow had to write the book again!

It isn't an irrelevant point at all. I read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory dozens of times as a kid and know the thing back to front. Liccy Dahl wasn't even married to Roald Dahl until nineteen years after he wrote the book. She is in no better position to judge the connection between the book and the film than I am. In order to judge that, she needs to know everything that made the book good (which is going to be very different to what the author thinks), which is why the comparison with the Sheens is entirely relevant.

just in to register my delight at cameron and avatar getting nothing (well avatar got a few effects related oscars but they are somewhat merited).

just in to register my delight at cameron and avatar getting nothing (well avatar got a few effects related oscars but they are somewhat merited).

I agree. Avatar got the awards it deserved.

All in all I would say there were very few surprises at the Oscars. Most that should have won did win.

Saw Alice in Wonderland with the wife on Saturday, and it was greatly entertaining.

just in to register my delight at cameron and avatar getting nothing (well avatar got a few effects related oscars but they are somewhat merited).

I would die for that dress Cameron had on, but that's completely different ball gown.

If The Hurt Locker won the rest of the competion must have been pretty dire. I thought it was a load of yankee gung-ho, shoot 'em up sh*te.

If The Hurt Locker won the rest of the competion must have been pretty dire. I thought it was a load of yankee gung-ho, shoot 'em up sh*te.

I still want to see it though, just to see what all the fuss is about.

District 9 should've won, imo.

If The Hurt Locker won the rest of the competion must have been pretty dire. I thought it was a load of yankee gung-ho, shoot 'em up sh*te.

I think I have to disagree. There wasn't that much shoot 'em up in it. Atleast that's what I thought anyway.

More like blow-'em-up. This film was a humanist statement, and longed for peace.

Now I want to see Avatar again, but in 4D at an IMAX theater after chasing the dragon....

Just watched Transformers - thought it was a load of tosh, but then I'm not 10 years old

Just watched Transformers - thought it was a load of tosh, but then I'm not 10 years old

Was it the first or the 2nd one? The first was, if I remember correctly, okay, the 2nd was completely rubbish. Despite all the loud noises in it I actually almost fell asleep.

Was it the first or the 2nd one? The first was, if I remember correctly, okay, the 2nd was completely rubbish. Despite all the loud noises in it I actually almost fell asleep.

I haven't seen either of them, but apparently the second one was voted the worst movie of 2009 at the Razzies the other day.

Was it the first or the 2nd one? The first was, if I remember correctly, okay, the 2nd was completely rubbish. Despite all the loud noises in it I actually almost fell asleep.

It was the 2nd

It was the 2nd

The 2nd one is awful, and that's coming from someone that has the mental age of a 10 year old.

The 1st one is great though, but you should treat it as a comedy rather than an action film.

Inglourious Basterds.. was very cool :P

the original Inspector Clouseau on sunday, possibly the funniest film ever made with my favourite clip ever.

From "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" - I watched it Sunday as well. I saw it theatrically with my Granny in 1976, and the "dog bite" scene had everyone in tears. My favorite part was his parallel bars dismount right into the living room interrogation. Classic!

Inglourious Basterds was incredible - "One of these days this war will be over, and you're gonna take that uniform off". Love Tarantino movies, esp Pulp Fiction.

Edited March 9, 201016 yr by ThunderDan

Am I the only one who isn't that fussed on Inglourious Basterds? It was good and I enjoyed it, but it's not superb. It was too long, excessive blood, I just thought it was all a bit OTT. But that's probably just me.

Hitler is hilarious in it though, fair play.

Edited March 10, 201016 yr by ThunderDan