I wonder if this film wasn't based on an L. Ron Hubbard book...

I've often wondered about the possibility of success of an adaptation of Fear. Make no reference to Hubbard or Scientology and I think it would stand a fair chance with the horror crowd.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I actually found the movie unwatchable, much much much worse than the book and I HATED the book. The movie is planet of the apes without the apes or the actors. At least the book took some time to develop characters. The whole point behind destroying the Psychlo planet was the surprise factor. The movie just treats it like a battle between equals. The Psychlos are supposed to be big, REALLY big, 9 feet and 1000 lbs. In the movie, they're more like 7 or 8 feet and 300 lbs. The humans are able to fight them hand to hand. Blech. Can I have my two hours back please?

reply share

add reply

formatting help

...would it have been better recieved? It would still be considered a crap movie, but I still think it would have been better--at least slightly better--recieved if it was based on a say, H.G. Wells book instead of an L. Ron Hubbard one.

If the novel had the same basic story, but was written by someone else: meaning it wouldn't have Hubbard's crap choice of words, sentence structure, and overall Scientology idiocy, the book would have been better received.

You see, the book was mauled by critics too.

A movie based on an alternate "Battlefield Earth" written by a more competent author would have better starting point, but for the movie to do it justice, it would still have needed a better script, production design, cinematography and direction than the movie actually ended up having.

Tesla was robbed!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yes, it would have been better received. But unfortunately it's still a bad film. I just read the book - despite the fact it was pretty long, I raced through it and actually enjoyed it...

"-recieved if it was based on a say, H.G. Wells book instead of an L. Ron Hubbard one."

Well, a certain high up Scientologist, Tom Cruise, appeared in a turkey known as "War of the Worlds". That was pretty bad.

--
It's not "Sci-Fi", it's SF!

"Calvinism is a very liberal religious ethos." - Truekiwijoker

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I was 18 when this came out, and knew nothing about Scientology. I bought the novel, read it, and, despite many of the same problems in the film, it was enjoyable. Hell, I liked it enough that I've gone back to re-read it twice since. It's a guilty pleasure.

Now, having said that, the film was just crap. Even without Hubbard's association to the story, it would STILL be crap.

--
Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Warning: If you care enough, you should copy and paste this somewhere before this guy: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2976184/ inevitably gets it deleted.

LMAO! Josh, out of what I can only imagine was utter embarrassment (and rightfully earned embarrasment at that), has finally stopped trying to get the last word (in this thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454029/board/nest/220116505?p=1 using his various other accounts to delete posts that pointed out how he was wrong, and just went and deleted all of his and my posts and everyone else's posts, and changed his username from JoshuaHutchins to... BertramWilberforceWooster! LMAO! Wow, this is hilariously amazing. I've never felt so vindicated over something that occured online. Whatever he changes his name to, here's a link to his main profile: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2976184/ Below is the argument between he and I in full with his old posts in the quote boxes and my old responses outside of those boxes and underneath his posts.

Summary of what this post is all about: This is basically an argument wherein BertramWilberforceWooster/JoshuaHutchins claims to like a movie but not its book form. Then, when asked why he disliked the book, he confidnetly and rudely lists negatives that happened... in the movie, not the book! When this is pointed out to him he basically mentally sharts himself a bunch then finally screams in all red capitol letters something that translated too, "I WAS TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND THIS VERY SIMPLE BOOK FOR TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS THAT MY CLASS WAS FORCED TO READ IN HIGH SCHOOL ONCE BUT THAT I DIDN'T READ PAST PAGE 10 OF PERSONALLY PARTLY BECAUSE IT HURT MY HEAD BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE MAIN DUDE CRIED OVER HIS FRIEND WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE IN THE PART I READ AND THAT MADE MY INSECURE MALE EGO FEEL GAY OR SOMETHING SO I BURNED THE BOOK IN MY BATHTUB AND JUST KNOW ABOUT IT FROM CLASS DISCUSSIONS AND SEEING THE MOVIE 12 YEARS LATER BUT SINCE I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENEID IN IT, I'M CONFUSING WHAT HAPPENED IN IT WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MOVIE AND YOU POINTING THAT OUT IS EMBARRASSING ME WHILE I TRY TO PRETEND TO BE AN AVID READER IN FRONT OF THE BIG IMDB KIDS! GO AWAY!" After my on-the-nose reply to that tantrum he enlists the help of... himself via his other accounts and goes on to first reply to me about how his JoshuaHutchins account/character was right and I was wrong without elaborating or anything. Then when I responded to those messages from his other accounts pointing out obvious facts that embarrased him even more, he went on a quest to use his multiple accounts to delete my posts in that thread as well as in other threads unrelated to that one.

I was only able to copy and paste his old posts because my old laptop broke while I had the tab with our original posts still open and upon recently getting it fixed, found it was basically a time capsule for my old internet activity. So below is our argument from before doughy pathetic Josh/Bertram, in utter shame, went delete-crazy. You epitomize unintelligent loser, Bertram/Josh. Unintelligent people go to great lengths to conceal their stupidity from the world, so you doing this makes total sense. Funny how if you didn't actually hate Perks because you never actually read or understood it before, I bet you actually hate it now because it must now always remind you of this shameful event where you were revealed to be an unintelligent simpleton and got so embarrased by that being made public that you deleted all of yours and your opponent's posts. How traumatizing for you. Lol, ya big dumb baby.

For the tl;dr crowd, BertramWilberforceWoster will delete your comments with his other accounts, as he did to mine, if you cotradict him with facts because he is incredibly unintelligent and very insecure about that fact. Below is our argument before he deleted everything:

by
JoshuaHutchins» Fri Dec 20 2014 05:27:39 Flag ▼
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004

"]by
RandomUser» Thurs Dec 19 2014 02:27:39 Flag ▼
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004
"You did not just posted (sic) the Perks of Being a Wallflower. You did not just do that. OMG. NO! The Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of the most amazing books ever! The film adaptation does not give justice to the beauty and the flawlessness of the narration in the printed material."

No, I did not just posted that. I wrote it four months ago. Charlie spent the first 3/4 of the book crying every other page, then he spends an 1/8 of the book talking about how he wouldn't cry. Around that mark, we finally get to why he tears up about everything.

Charlie was a pussy? Yeah, you're a moron. You don't seem to have a legitimate reason for disliking the book.

by
JoshuaHutchins» Sat Dec 21 2014 07:47:39 Flag ▼
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004
This book was marketed toward my generation, was heavily advertised on MTV, I checked it out. It was horrible. The movie made Charlie to be less of a pussy and allowed us to FEEL what he was experiencing (I credit Lurman with that more than Chbosky). Chbosky, in his novel, TOLD us everything. He didn't allow the reader to see it for his/herself. That's the main draw back. Another is I felt no connection to ANY character. They were cardboard cutouts.

The book is filled with bullsh!t quotes everyone thinks are deep, ranging from "And in that moment, we were infinite" to "We accept the love we think we deserve" to “He's a wallflower. You see things. You keep quiet about them. And you understand.” That's the same type of *beep* that people said when the story takes place as well as when I was in High School and still do today. It's not deep: it's random crap thrown at a wall that sticks.

Charlie spent 3/4 of the book crying. Yes, he's damaged, I get that. But I just couldn't connect with him. Of the remaining 1/4, half is spent telling us he will only cry if something is important. Around the 7/8 point, we find out WHY he is the way he is, and it just feels hallow. Even my wife, who was abused by her step-father, felt the whole book rang untrue.

Chbosky spent the entire book TELLING the reader, instead of SHOWING the reader, about Charlie's problems. The movie at least fleshes the characters out. We are shown why Charlie has a crush on Sam. Patrick is a full-developed character instead of a cardboard cut-out who just happens to be gay.

So, yeah, I stand by what I said. The book was garbage.

Those quotes are all from the film, not the book. Card board cut outs? You seem to just be using phrases you've heard before to come off as bright except they're not fitting here and your lack of real knowlege is very apparent. Charlie didn't spend anywhere close to 3/4 of the book crying. That is a fact. The 2 or 3 times he did cry were fitting considering the context. Not to mention he says in the beginning of the book that he's an emotional person. That's his character. He was dealing with the suicide of his good friend among other things. "Yes, he's damaged, I get that." Clearly you don't get that or why would someone crying over their friend's suicide and crying when they finally make real friends bother you so much that you dislike an entire book? Feels hallow? That's pretty vague. Why did the reveal feel "hallow" to you? Because you had trouble imagining it play out? That would be your brain's fault, not the author's. And what about the book "rang untrue" for your wife who is a female, adult, potentially not experienced with repressed memories, and altogether a different person?

Are you sure you read this book? Sam and Patrick are delved into a lot more in the book than in the film, especially Patrick. That's specifically something I found better about the book than the film - that Patrick was given more depth. It's the movie where his story and character are cut short and played sort of goofily. His thing with Brad and his reaction to it and how it started gets a lot more attention in the book. In the book it really goes into where his head was when he was going out and getting drunk every night and why he kissed Charlie. And gosh, Sam too. Sam was a really profound character in the book and her motivations and reactions were made clear in print unlike her film counterpart. She tells/asks Charlie things in the books that she doesn't in the movie. These things reveal the way her character thinks but you don't see much of that in the film. So much of that was cut for the movie. The only thing I liked more in the film about anyone's character development was Sam being given that goal of trying to get into the college of her choice and the Charlie as her tutor plot-point.

It really doesn't seem like you read the book to make such an inaccurate claim about Patrick. The movie definitely pays less attention to him than the book.

"Chbosky spent the entire book TELLING the reader, instead of SHOWING the reader, about Charlie's problems."

I don't even... Yeah, I think my initial assessment was right. You're just kind of... a moron. Books aren't your thing. You prefer films and that's fine. But it's not because the story is poorly told, it's because your brain is too dense to absorb books properly. I mean, what do you mean by "telling the reader" instead of "showing the reader" in a book? How? Every event you see in the movie happened in the book except some of what happens in the books is not shown at all, so what are you referring to? You mean the author should have told the reader in the beginning what traumatic thing happened to Charlie??? And omit the occasional warrented crying by the main character over dead friends and attaining real friends so it doesn't bug simple-minded, emotionally childish, simps like you who probably only know this book because they were forced to read it in school? That would be good storytellying to you?

by
JoshuaHutchins» Fri Feb 21 2015 10:08:02 Flag ▼
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004
You seem awful upset that I didn't like the book. So much so that you're making assumptions that have no basis in reality. Yes, I like movies. I own probably 200 DVDs. But my collection of books is in the thousands. And I've read them all. From Michael Crichton to Mary Shelley, from Tom Clancy to Douglas Adams, from Herman Wouk to James Clavell, I have quite a varied in books.

As for "telling" versus "showing"? Chbosky told us EVERYTHING. Instead of allowing us to get inside of Charlie's head and understand for ourselves, he consistently told us what he was feeling. That's lazy writing, and is what leads me to conclude he's a better filmmaker than a better novelist. I felt for Charlie in the movie. I did not in the book.

My problem the reveal is after it's made known, Charlie didn't react with anger at all. Naturally, he was shocked. That's fine, but there was no outburst of emotion. His family didn't talk to him, never mentioned it. The author's intent may have been to finally show us how deep the problems were with the family that they didn't talk about it after it was known, but with the track record I saw in the book, I really don't think that was the reason. So, yes, the end felt hallow.

"From Michael Crichton to Mary Shelley, from Tom Clancy to Douglas Adams, from Herman Wouk to James Clavell, I have quite a varied in books."

You have quite a varied what in books? I made that assumption because if you did read Perks, it doesn't seem like you retained or understood what was in the book. So it would stand to reason that if you fail to comprehend Perks, which is a fairly easy read, you can't possibly enjoy many other books, especially not ones more complex than Perks, for lack of your comprehension ability alone.

"Chbosky told us EVERYTHING. Instead of allowing us to get inside of Charlie's head and understand for ourselves, he consistently told us what he was feeling. That's lazy writing..."

Huh? That's just blatantly untrue. How would that even be possible when the story is told IN FIRST PERSON?! Haha, can you actually describe what you mean? When did Chbosky ever write lazily? Can you give even one example of him telling us something he could/should have "showed" the reader? It really doesn't seem like you read this book. Or again, maybe you're just not smart enough to understand simple prose literature. Not everyone is I suppose...

"My problem the reveal is after it's made known, Charlie didn't react with anger at all. Naturally, he was shocked. That's fine, but there was no outburst of emotion. His family didn't talk to him, never mentioned it. The author's intent may have been to finally show us how deep the problems were with the family that they didn't talk about it after it was known, but with the track record I saw in the book, I really don't think that was the reason. So, yes, the end felt hallow."

I'm not even quite sure what to say here. I guess I'll start by pointing out that pretty much everything you wrote here is factually incorrect. Charlie did feel anger at his aunt after he uncovered those memories and even talks about how his feelings of hate for her ebbed and flowed while he was in the hospital. It's the movie where he doesn't clearly express his feelings about what his aunt did to him, not the book. And he does have a distinct outburst of emotion in the book (and the film) so you're wrong about that too. And his family DOES talk to him about what happened. Like, A LOT. I mean, I might think you were trolling if your posts weren't so long. His parents talk to him about it and his siblings also talk to him about everything. They even ask direct questions about it because they wondered how they never noticed and why she only did it to Charlie and not them.

Again, it's in the movie, not the book, where there's no scene included of him talking to his family about what his aunt did. In the book he talks to both his family and friends about everything and they visit him numerous times. In the book, Patrick and Sam and his other friends visit him from college so much when he's in the hospital at the end there. It's so sweet. They really make him feel better. So do his siblings and parents and even grandparents. Even his teacher, who he gets very close to and visits the apartment of in the book (but not in the film), visits him in the hospital (also not in the film). The ending of the book, if anything, was the complete opposite of "hallow" as it was very fulfilling and filled with closure and hope. I just... I don't understand how you could miss all of that... 

My conclusion is that either you've never read this book, or that you did read it but are so profoundly unintelligent that you just didn't understand the plain English it was written in and got confused and failed to follow the plot. Or I guess it's possible that you're not profoundly stupid but just quite stupid and just somehow forgot most of the plot of the story. I don't know which is worse.

by
JoshuaHutchins» Sun Mar 2 2015 09:39:41 Flag ▼
Ignore User Report Post | Reply | Permalink
IMDb member since January 2004
Your assumption that I'm stupid is fine. And I'm okay with it. You don't know me, but I'll make this easy for you. I DON'T LIKE THE *beep* BOOK! Since you cannot get that through your head, I'll just block you.

Yeah, lol, I gleaned that you don't like it. I was simply inquiring why and the reasons you gave for not liking it were things that happened in the movie, not the book. So excuse me for still wondering why you didn't like the book and I'll excuse you for not having even one good or bad actual reason. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the ignore/block feature. It's not meant to be used on people for asking you to back up your claims and pointing out to you how you're factually wrong about this thing or that. I doubt you even blocked me. People just say that when they lose an argument. I mean if you're going to block me just block me, why announce it? You're so transparent.

After this comment of mine is when he started using his other accounts to argue with me, and after I shut those down with facts too is when he started deleting my posts then eventually the entire thread.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I like to think this film is bad on its own merits. I know little of Scientology other than that SOUTH PARK episode. I don't know much of L. Ron Hubbard or most of his writings.


http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I think if it was based on a classic H.G. Wells novel it would be considered even more of a travesty.

reply share

add reply

formatting help