New TV Adaptation
This is getting remade again. It'll be on TNT. I hope it's good! I always thought that a TV adaptation is what would do the book the most justice. :)
shareThey've been talking about this for a while, but so far nothing.
I notice Let Me In producer Simon Oakes is involved. http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/30/let-the-right-one-in-getting-tnt-adaptation-from-teen-wolf-tv-series-creator?abthid=57c5a06932e533e91600000b
The novel is pretty disturbing in places....not sure how they plan to handle some of that.
Would rather they drop the "right one" part out of the title to allow for more ambiguity. That announces right away there is a right and wrong choice. I guess that is what they want for a TV show though.
Would rather they drop the "right one" part out of the title to allow for more ambiguity. That announces right away there is a right and wrong choice. I guess that is what they want for a TV show though.
I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake. share
I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake.
Not likely since very few people know any of these properties exist in the first place...
...and since one of the Let Me In producers from Hammer Films is involved with the project. (Simon Oakes)
Since it's TV, making sure the audience knows there is a "right" and "wrong" might be their motivation. The ambiguity of LMI might not work for the small screen. TV characters tend to be pretty clear cut. share
The producer has already been talking up the Swedish film and the novel and LMI hasn't been mentioned at all. At the end of the day they're the ones held in higher regard.
shareactually, they better choose which of the stories to base the tv series on. Abby needs to be an evil bloodsucker while Eli is a sweet kid in love, so totally different stories.
shareactually, they better choose which of the stories to base the tv series on. Abby needs to be an evil bloodsucker while Eli is a sweet kid in love, so totally different stories.
You can do it either way with any version obviously. There are debates about the motivations of the vampire characters in every version. You are one of the few who thinks their personal interpretation is law for everyone else. share
The producer has already been talking up the Swedish film and the novel and LMI hasn't been mentioned at all. At the end of the day they're the ones held in higher regard.
Actually LMI was mentioned in that article I linked. (and LMI was "higher regarded")
So they must be basing it in Sweden, right? Wasn't that one of the complaints about LMI...being set in the US? So surely they would avoid that since you claim they are ignoring LMI. 😎
But then, the comments I saw were talking about the novel...not the movie. share
(and LMI was "higher regarded")
If you mean "more people saw it" then I suppose it is in the same way "Grown Ups 2" is more regarded than "My Dinner With Andre."
So they must be basing it in Sweden, right? Wasn't that one of the complaints about LMI...being set in the US? So surely they would avoid that since you claim they are ignoring LMI.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
But then, the comments I saw were talking about the novel...not the movie.
From the producer, as I mentioned:
"One of the differences between the two projects is that Teen Wolf was a classic movie, but it’s not exactly considered artistic and beautiful, and the kind of film that would win awards. Let the Right One In, the film, is. There is a lot to live up to when adapting that. It’s quite a challenge to adapt a film that’s so respected, but one of the things we’re also doing is taking a lot from the book, which goes very much in-depth. It wasn’t actually until I read the book that I thought to myself, “Okay, I think this can be a TV show.”
So he mentions both the Swedish film and the novel as to what he is holding his show up to but not LMI.
http://collider.com/teen-wolf-season-5-jeff-davis-interview/
So again, that's probably the main reason why this show will be called "Let the Right One In" and not "Let Me In". share
I see LTROI fans are still butthurt about LMI and terrified that other people might actually like it. So much so they still feel compelled to come to a board for a movie they don't even like to take shots at it and insist the movie they like is "better".
Same old moronic egotistical elitist douchebag behavior that has been going on for years.
And then of course comes the claim that LMI fans are somehow making it all up in their heads, right? 😁
If you mean "more people saw it" then I suppose it is in the same way "Grown Ups 2" is more regarded than "My Dinner With Andre."
No, I mean from the IGN article I linked (http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/30/let-the-right-one-in-getting-tnt-adaptation-from-teen-wolf-tv-series-creator?abthid=57c5a06932e533e91600000b) in which they also mentioned LMI and they included a link to their review of LMI in which they said:
"Well let us allay your fears from the outset - Let Me In is a marvellous re-imagining of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel; an intelligent adaptation that has been crafted with such love, care and attention that it deserves to be judged on its own terms, and a film that - dare-we-say-it - might even improve on the original."
There are people who like LMI more...you'll have accept that or go on complaining that other people don't agree with your view of a piece of art. Good luck proving "better" exists in art.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
That was one of the main complaints about LMI. They "ruined" it by setting it in the US. Some were even claiming that made it a "Hollywood movie". (so they could get their anti-USA rant in)
So obviously they must be planning to set this in Sweden if they are so keen to avoid anything LMI did, right?
It wasn’t actually until I read the book that I thought to myself, “Okay, I think this can be a TV show.”
Doesn't sound like the first movie was the reason for the show to me.
And I noticed that TWO of the producers from LMI are involved. So obviously they have nothing against LMI. The most logical reason is that the name "Let Me In" was just something that happened almost by accident in the first place and wasn't something they were a fan of. (I personally like the name better due to the ambiguity)
So reaching for some perceived insult against LMI doesn't actually pan out here.
share
I see LTROI fans are still butthurt about LMI and terrified that other people might actually like it. So much so they still feel compelled to come to a board for a movie they don't even like to take shots at it and insist the movie they like is "better".
Same old moronic egotistical elitist douchebag behavior that has been going on for years.
I said nothing of the sort, you are looking for an attack on your beloved film where there is none. I came on here to offer my opinion as to why they called the series by its original title and not the title used by the remake.
No, I mean from the IGN article I linked (http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/30/let-the-right-one-in-getting-tnt-adaptation-from-teen-wolf-tv-series-creator?abthid=57c5a06932e533e91600000b) in which they also mentioned LMI and they included a link to their review of LMI in which they said: "Well let us allay your fears from the outset - Let Me In is a marvellous re-imagining of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel; an intelligent adaptation that has been crafted with such love, care and attention that it deserves to be judged on its own terms, and a film that - dare-we-say-it - might even improve on the original."
There are people who like LMI more...you'll have accept that or go on complaining that other people don't agree with your view of a piece of art. Good luck proving "better" exists in art.
Is one example supposed to change anything? There are people who prefer LMI but the general consensus is that LTROI is the superior film. Even most of the positive reviews that LMI received say the same exact thing. Just as it's subjective that 'Psycho' is better than 'Family Plot' but the majority opinion is that the former is superior.
And I noticed that TWO of the producers from LMI are involved. So obviously they have nothing against LMI. The most logical reason is that the name "Let Me In" was just something that happened almost by accident in the first place and wasn't something they were a fan of. (I personally like the name better due to the ambiguity)
So reaching for some perceived insult against LMI doesn't actually pan out here.
Never said it was a perceived insult, you are just inferring that. What I said was that the people involved with the series are saying that they're using both the Swedish film and the original novel as the main blueprint. Which is why the title they are using is 'Let the Right One In'. That's all my argument is, that they're using the original title because their show owes more to the original versions. You are the one trying to make this into a slight against Reeves' film. share
"You are the one trying to make this into a slight against Reeves' film." - MartenBroadcloak
Yeah, he does that ... a lot.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
I said nothing of the sort, you are looking for an attack on your beloved film where there is none. I came on here to offer my opinion as to why they called the series by its original title and not the title used by the remake.
And that opinion is not logical since, as I pointed out, there are two LMI producers connected to the series. Assuming "I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake." is just that...your imagination.
The more logic thing to assume would be this is rooted in Alex Brunner's original love for the novel. He is the Hammer exec who pointed out he brought the novel to Hammer's attention before the first movie was even made. ...And in the fact that the name change had more to do with the US release of the novel than the remake. There is exactly zero motivation for two Hammer execs to want to avoid LMI so your "imagination" is based on something other than logic.
Is one example supposed to change anything? There are people who prefer LMI but the general consensus is that LTROI is the superior film. Even most of the positive reviews that LMI received say the same exact thing. Just as it's subjective that 'Psycho' is better than 'Family Plot' but the majority opinion is that the former is superior.
Is the "majority" supposed to change anything? Does this mean that LTROI is "inferior" to every single movie that has a higher "regard" from the "majority"?....or does that really mean absolutely nothing?
I invite you to prove there is such a thing as "better" in art.
But let's get this one in the discussion too: Is there some reason why you felt the need to bring up this nebulous "higher regarded" idea in this conversation?
Or is that another one I just imagined? Too bad it's right there in your post though. I already quoted you so you can't go edit it out now.
Never said it was a perceived insult, you are just inferring that. What I said was that the people involved with the series are saying that they're using both the Swedish film and the original novel as the main blueprint. Which is why the title they are using is 'Let the Right One In'. That's all my argument is, that they're using the original title because their show owes more to the original versions. You are the one trying to make this into a slight against Reeves' film.
That's not "all you are arguing" at all. You specifically said:
I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake.
Why would that even matter? Almost no one even knows any of these properties exist.
Well let's continue that line of thinking and notice that it is actually the novel that appears to be the main inspiration here. Brunner of Hammer Films was a fan of the novel before there were any movies at all and the novel was mentioned as the reason they were convinced there was a TV show there.
Or do you now want to insist the first movie is a big player here and that the creators are somehow trying to avoid LMI even though two LMI producers are involved.
Will logic win over your emotion or will you keep insisting on something that doesn't make any sense?
share
And that opinion is not logical since, as I pointed out, there are two LMI producers connected to the series. Assuming "I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake." is just that...your imagination.
The more logic thing to assume would be this is rooted in Alex Brunner's original love for the novel. He is the Hammer exec who pointed out he brought the novel to Hammer's attention before the first movie was even made. ...And in the fact that the name change had more to do with the US release of the novel than the remake. There is exactly zero motivation for two Hammer execs to want to avoid LMI so your "imagination" is based on something other than logic.
You were given exact quotes from the showrunner saying that the series is derived from the Swedish film and the novel. I'm not sure what else you need if the showrunner himself is not enough to convince you. Meanwhile Brunner AFAIK has not said word one about the television show unless I missed something.
Is the "majority" supposed to change anything? Does this mean that LTROI is "inferior" to every single movie that has a higher "regard" from the "majority"?....or does that really mean absolutely nothing?
I invite you to prove there is such a thing as "better" in art.
But let's get this one in the discussion too: Is there some reason why you felt the need to bring up this nebulous "higher regarded" idea in this conversation?
Or is that another one I just imagined? Too bad it's right there in your post though. I already quoted you so you can't go edit it out now.
What it shows is that, yes, the original film is regarded as the better version which is one of the reasons why the series would affiliate itself with it. I have no reason to edit it out because I still stand by it. Obviously whether or not *it is* better is what is subjective but it's still the opinion shared by most.
Well let's continue that line of thinking and notice that it is actually the novel that appears to be the main inspiration here. Brunner of Hammer Films was a fan of the novel before there were any movies at all and the novel was mentioned as the reason they were convinced there was a TV show there.
Or you could just look at the guy actually in charge of helming the show, Jeff Davis:
"One of the differences between the two projects is that Teen Wolf was a classic movie, but it’s not exactly considered artistic and beautiful, and the kind of film that would win awards. Let the Right One In, the film, is. There is a lot to live up to when adapting that. It’s quite a challenge to adapt a film that’s so respected, but one of the things we’re also doing is taking a lot from the book, which goes very much in-depth. It wasn’t actually until I read the book that I thought to myself, “Okay, I think this can be a TV show.”
http://collider.com/teen-wolf-season-5-jeff-davis-interview/ share
You were given exact quotes from the showrunner saying that the series is derived from the Swedish film and the novel. I'm not sure what else you need if the showrunner himself is not enough to convince you. Meanwhile Brunner AFAIK has not said word one about the television show unless I missed something.
I did see the quotes talking about how they are drawing inspiration from the novel and how it was really the novel that let them know they had a TV show.
But that's a different subject. I was talking about your "imagination" lending motives to things that make no sense. As you can see, there are two producers from LMI attached to the project, so your "imagination" is creating things that aren't there. You can hear the Hammer guys and Brunner talking about the novel here at about 0:35:
https://vimeo.com/41665237
Now at TNT, the pilot will be executive produced by Davis, Adelstein (Aquarius, Teen Wolf), Clements (Aquarius), Oakes (Women in Black), Alex Brunner (Dark Places), and the original screenplay's producer, Carl Molinder.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/30/let-the-right-one-in-getting-tnt-adaptation-from-teen-wolf-tv-series-creator?abthid=57c5a06932e533e91600000b
So though you "imagine" that "they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake", that doesn't actually make sense given the people involved with it. Why would they "want" such a thing?
And who are these "people" you are imagining? There are very few people who are aware of any of these properties based on JAL's book. What possible effect could have have on the TV show's audience?
Given the past claims I've heard about "stupid Americans", it would be the opposite they would "want". ...But of course those claims were horse crap anyway on many levels.
What it shows is that, yes, the original film is regarded as the better version which is one of the reasons why the series would affiliate itself with it. I have no reason to edit it out because I still stand by it. Obviously whether or not *it is* better is what is subjective but it's still the opinion shared by most.
Meaningless claim due to the fact few even know about either movie in the first place and that art can't be better or worse. "Majority" is not relevant. Not to mention that LMI was highly regarded as well so any "better" claim is based on the thinnest margin even by those who place value in such non-existent measures. "Most" also like Transformers movies more than either LMI or LTROI so that demonstrates how little that matters.
It wasn’t actually until I read the book that I thought to myself, “Okay, I think this can be a TV show.”
Oh I saw that. The novel seems to be the main inspiration here. Which would of course explain the title. share
I did see the quotes talking about how they are drawing inspiration from the novel and how it was really the novel that let them know they had a TV show.
I assume you also saw the quotes talking about living up to the Swedish film or the challenges of adapting such an acclaimed film.
As you can see, there are two producers from LMI attached to the project, so your "imagination" is creating things that aren't there.
I don't know what their mindset is on this. Maybe because LMI lost money for them they're not bringing it up.
Meaningless claim due to the fact few even know about either movie in the first place and that art can't be better or worse. "Majority" is not relevant. Not to mention that LMI was highly regarded as well so any "better" claim is based on the thinnest margin even by those who place value in such non-existent measures. "Most" also like Transformers movies more than either LMI or LTROI so that demonstrates how little that matters.
More people have seen Transformers but I've seen very little evidence that those who have seen both think it's better.
Oh I saw that. The novel seems to be the main inspiration here. Which would of course explain the title.
Yes, and not because it's "less ambiguous".
share
"I don't know what their mindset is on this. Maybe because LMI lost money for them they're not bringing it up." - MartenBroadcloak
Let Me In made a profit in theatres alone, DVD/Bluray sales add to that profit.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lettherightonein09.htm
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
That's not a profit. It didn't even break even.
share"That's not a profit. It didn't even break even." - MartenBroadcloak
The figures I have are a Budget of $20M, and worldwide box office of $24M
That's a profit of $4M, not including DVD/Bluray sales, etc.
Granted it's not a huge profit, but profit nonetheless.
Do you have different figures?
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
That's not how the box office works. A lot of the money goes to the theaters.
http://www.boxofficeflops.com/articles/when-does-a-movie-break-even-at-the-box-office/
The new Ghostbusters film made more than it cost but is still a flop for example.
So, do you have any actual figures? You also should be aware that in 2010 there was still a sliding scale where theatres didn't really make any money from films until the third or fourth week. Let Me In wasn't in theatres for more than two weeks.
You also have to take into account something called "Hollywood accounting" (I know Hammer aren't "Hollywood"), which adds another vague layer of ambiguity over any official figures.
One thing I am sure of though, if a property doesn't make a profit it is extremely unlikely that the studio will revisit said property. I doubt very much that Hammer will be financing The Wake Wood 2, where they have made The Woman in Black 2.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story
This explains it more.
http://www.boxofficeflops.com/yearly-breakdowns/2010-2/let-me-in/
As for why Hammer would make a show, idk. I doubt they have a lot to lose. There's not a lot of other exclusive properties they can make shows of.
"As for why Hammer would make a show, idk. I doubt they have a lot to lose. There's not a lot of other exclusive properties they can make shows of." - MartenBroadcloak
They could lose their investment.
They already own the rights so it's a wasted opportunity if they just sit on their hands. Done right, this show could bring in a large audience. Stranger Things has shown that audiences are open to a slow plot with a dark story.
I guess we'll see.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
That's not how the box office works. A lot of the money goes to the theaters.
http://www.boxofficeflops.com/articles/when-does-a-movie-break-even-at-the-box-office/
The new Ghostbusters film made more than it cost but is still a flop for example.
You are leaving out a few things. The theatrical run of movies is a pretty small part of the picture. As you pointed out, the ridiculous budgets on these movies would bankrupt the movie industry if that's all they made.
Here is a better picture of how they make money: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/MPA2007.htm
First, these reported " box office grosses" are not actually what the studios take in from their movies. They are the ticket sales which go to the movie houses. The movie houses usually keep about half for themselves and remit the balance to distributors (which may or may not be an arm of the studio). The distributor then deducts from the its out-of pocket cash expenses, including prints and advertising (called “P&A,”). These deductions often wipe out most, if not all, of what remains. Studios spent on average $35.9 million just for P &A on each of their titles in 2007. (Even their so-called “indie” divisions, such as Miramax, Sony Classics, and Fox Searchlight, spent an average of $25.7 million on P & A.) As a result, the studios spent more on P&A to lure in an audience into American theaters for an average film then they got back from their share of the box-office. And that does not take into account the cost of making a movie, which for a studio averaged $70.8 million in 2007 (Their Indie divisions spent only $49.5 per film). So while a "boffo" box-office gross might look good in a Variety headline, it might also signify a boffo loss.
Second, and far most important, it diverts from the reality that the domestic box-office provides only a minute part of the studios’ revenues/ (See Table 1). In 2007, according to the secret MPAA studio numbers, only about 20 percent of the the studios' revenue came from movie theaters, and over half of that came from foreign theaters. In 2007, worldwide TV, Pay TV, DVDs, and other licensing provided 80% of these revenues.
Movies now serve as launching platforms for creating properties that make their real profit in the so-called “back end” , much like the runways at haute couture fashion shows. Because of the crucial importance of these post-theatrical rights, Hollywood's profit margins depend upon optimally leveraging these properties across all the platforms they can find, such as Pay Per View, DVDs, Video-On-Demand, and TV movies. There is (no longer) a movie industry, there is an entertainment industry.
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/CameraObscura.htm
So it's far more complex than just looking at the budget vs box office. share
Let Me In made a profit in theatres alone, DVD/Bluray sales add to that profit.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lettherightonein09.htm
Ok...I gotta be fair and give you credit for pointing out something inaccurate a LTROI fan said. share
I assume you also saw the quotes talking about living up to the Swedish film or the challenges of adapting such an acclaimed film.
That doesn't change the fact that the novel is the inspiration for the show. I know you want to paint it as the show being about the Swedish film and the show runners somehow wanting to avoid LMI, but that's not the reality of it.
I don't know what their mindset is on this. Maybe because LMI lost money for them they're not bringing it up.
Your mind reading skills aren't actually good points. Frankly, I really don't believe you have the ability to read minds. I apologize if you possess that ability.
The fact remains that LMI producers are behind this show so it makes your speculation pretty weak. Movies actually make most of their money after they leave theaters so LMI ultimate made a profit for Hammer.
More people have seen Transformers but I've seen very little evidence that those who have seen both think it's better.
Not just "more people"....a LOT more people. Transformers movies are enormously popular while the LTROI movie made just over 11 million worldwide. That means almost no one was even interested enough to see it at all. So finding anyone who saw both is going to be a struggle.
And since you've already brought up "majority opinion", you can't very well claim LTROI is better than Transformers now when so many more people like Transformers than LTROI. The "majority" rules, right?
Or maybe trying to claim one movie is "better" is silly in the first place since that is impossible to prove?
Yes, and not because it's "less ambiguous".
That title is less ambiguous either way.
share
That doesn't change the fact that the novel is the inspiration for the show. I know you want to paint it as the show being about the Swedish film and the show runners somehow wanting to avoid LMI, but that's not the reality of it.
They're talking about adapting the Swedish film as well as the novel. That's the reality.
Your mind reading skills aren't actually good points. Frankly, I really don't believe you have the ability to read minds. I apologize if you possess that ability.
The fact remains that LMI producers are behind this show so it makes your speculation pretty weak. Movies actually make most of their money after they leave theaters so LMI ultimate made a profit for Hammer.
The LMI producers are involved and still the Swedish film/novel are still the ones being being talked up by the people involved with the show. No mind reading skills required.
Not just "more people"....a LOT more people. Transformers movies are enormously popular while the LTROI movie made just over 11 million worldwide. That means almost no one was even interested enough to see it at all. So finding anyone who saw both is going to be a struggle.
And since you've already brought up "majority opinion", you can't very well claim LTROI is better than Transformers now when so many more people like Transformers than LTROI. The "majority" rules, right?
Or maybe trying to claim one movie is "better" is silly in the first place since that is impossible to prove?
The majority of people who saw Transformers don't know LTROI exists, as you said.
With LTROI and LMI there is a considerable overlap and the bulk of those who have seen both have said the Swedish film is better.
Plus the Transformers films are generally considered to be bad movies in spite of their success.
share
They're talking about adapting the Swedish film as well as the novel. That's the reality.
It wasn’t actually until I read the book that I thought to myself, “Okay, I think this can be a TV show.”
That's the reality. You don't read your own links.
The LMI producers are involved and still the Swedish film/novel are still the ones being being talked up by the people involved with the show. No mind reading skills required.
You assigning illogical motives to two LMI producers would require you to have mind reading powers. The assumptions you make are not logical and only serve to support some LTROI fanboy fantasy.
The majority of people who saw Transformers don't know LTROI exists, as you said.
With LTROI and LMI there is a considerable overlap and the bulk of those who have seen both have said the Swedish film is better.
Plus the Transformers films are generally considered to be bad movies in spite of their success.
So you use the majority to decide which art is better when it suits you and ignore the majority when you don't like what the majority likes. I'm not surprised at all. Most who make absurd claims about quality in art reach for double standards. share
That's the reality. You don't read your own links.
I did. Read the interview. He talks about living up to the Swedish film and adapting it. Then he talks about the book being a factor. He doesn't talk up LMI at all.
You assigning illogical motives to two LMI producers would require you to have mind reading powers. The assumptions you make are not logical and only serve to support some LTROI fanboy fantasy.
As opposed to "The only reason why they're not calling this 'Let Me In' is because 'Let Me In' is the more ambiguous title"? That's based on nothing except for your own interpretations of what the titles mean. Mine is based on the fact that the people involved with the show have been talking up LTROI and haven't mentioned LMI at all except to say that this is not based on LMI.
So you use the majority to decide which art is better when it suits you and ignore the majority when you don't like what the majority likes. I'm not surprised at all. Most who make absurd claims about quality in art reach for double standards.
There are no double-standards. LTROI is viewed as a modern classic in ways that the Transformers films are not. Although again we're talking about two films seen by two different groups of people.
With LTROI and LMI, we have two films that have been extensively compared and the overwhelming majority opinion is that LTROI is the superior one.
share
I did. Read the interview. He talks about living up to the Swedish film and adapting it. Then he talks about the book being a factor. He doesn't talk up LMI at all.
No, he talked about the book being THE factor. That's the part you are trying to leave out to get some kind of shot in on LMI as being something they are trying to avoid.
As opposed to "The only reason why they're not calling this 'Let Me In' is because 'Let Me In' is the more ambiguous title"? That's based on nothing except for your own interpretations of what the titles mean. Mine is based on the fact that the people involved with the show have been talking up LTROI and haven't mentioned LMI at all except to say that this is not based on LMI.
That's actually my preference in title. I like that it leaves options open for any interpretation. I would think they are using the original title in part because the LMI title was almost by happenstance in the first place.
Which makes more sense than your wacky idea that two LMI producers would seek to avoid LMI even though almost no one even knows anything about either movie. They would be doing all that for who? The small group of LTROI fans who were attacking them non-stop before, during, and after LMI's release? Yeah...that totally makes sense they would be eager to please those douchebags. The audience for this TV show better be bigger than the LTROI fan base if they want to stay on the air.
Since they are all based on the same source material, it's really based on the novel just like both movies.
There are no double-standards. LTROI is viewed as a modern classic in ways that the Transformers films are not. Although again we're talking about two films seen by two different groups of people.
With LTROI and LMI, we have two films that have been extensively compared and the overwhelming majority opinion is that LTROI is the superior one.
So you want to just leave out the overwhelming majority of human beings who enjoy Transformers movies over LTROI in favor of a tiny group of unnamed people whose opinion you have decided to count as "viewing" various movies and then suddenly you want to use that "majority". Got it.
You really don't think you can get away with that crap, do you? Either you think the majority is right about art or you don't. Pick one.
I notice that "modern classic" didn't win a single award at the Oscars. Don't recall seeing it on any top 10 lists in 2008 either. Funny how almost no one you meet has ever even heard of this "modern classic". They all know about The Dark Knight from that year though. Want to take a vote and see which movie people think is better from those two? Let me guess...suddenly "the majority" won't be worth anything.
I hope you do try to prove quality in art can be measured. That one is easy to shoot down. share
makes more sense than your wacky idea that two LMI producers would seek to avoid LMI even though almost no one even knows anything about either movie. They would be doing all that for who? The small group of LTROI fans who were attacking them non-stop before, during, and after LMI's release? Yeah...that totally makes sense they would be eager to please those douchebags. The audience for this TV show better be bigger than the LTROI fan base if they want to stay on the air.
Except that's exactly what they're doing. They're avoiding LMI, if not deliberately then maybe it's just forgotten. Two producers are working on it as you say and it's a complete non-entity. The showrunner explicitly mentions living up to the Swedish film. He does not mention LMI once.
So you want to just leave out the overwhelming majority of human beings who enjoy Transformers movies over LTROI in favor of a tiny group of unnamed people whose opinion you have decided to count as "viewing" various movies and then suddenly you want to use that "majority". Got it.
If they've never seen LTROI then they why would their opinion be a factor?
You really don't think you can get away with that crap, do you? Either you think the majority is right about art or you don't. Pick one.
On the contrary there are numerous times where I don't agree with the majority opinion on this. I.e. The general consensus is that the Cape Fear remake is superior to the original with Robert Mitchum. I prefer the original but acknowledge that.
I notice that "modern classic" didn't win a single award at the Oscars. Don't recall seeing it on any top 10 lists in 2008 either. Funny how almost no one you meet has ever even heard of this "modern classic". They all know about The Dark Knight from that year though. Want to take a vote and see which movie people think is better from those two? Let me guess...suddenly "the majority" won't be worth anything.
Actually TDK is considered to be such a classic that it wouldn't surprise me if TDK was considered to be superior over LTROI. Nolan's probably one of the most acclaimed living directors. I personally prefer LTROI but I can still admit that.
As for LTROI, it's constantly on various "best of" lists even today. It's won over 70 awards. People are still talking about it and referring to it as being a classic. Even if you personally dislike it it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest it's not held in incredibly high regard.
share
Except that's exactly what they're doing. They're avoiding LMI, if not deliberately then maybe it's just forgotten. Two producers are working on it as you say and it's a complete non-entity. The showrunner explicitly mentions living up to the Swedish film. He does not mention LMI once.
And of course you feel you need to invent some motive behind that which is naturally an insult to LMI. "I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake". Nice fantasy you have going there. Lucky for you fantasies don't have to make any sense. What possible reason would they "want" that? There is no benefit for them at all due to the obscurity of all these properties. Any effect on ratings by catering to the tiny LTROI fanbase won't be noticed.
It's all in your "imagination" but it's something you dearly want to believe as evidenced by your struggle to support that illogical mind-reading fantasy here.
If they've never seen LTROI then they why would their opinion be a factor?
You mean the fact that the overwhelming majority of movie fans had no interest in LTROI? Yeah...that's a factor. Especially in regard to your "imagining" that two LMI producers would seek to avoid LMI for such a small group of people. You want to discount all that and place great importance on the "majority" of a tiny group of people who are predisposed to like a certain movie. Hey...let's go ask a group of Dixie Dregs fans who the best band is while we are at it.
On the contrary there are numerous times where I don't agree with the majority opinion on this. I.e. The general consensus is that the Cape Fear remake is superior to the original with Robert Mitchum. I prefer the original but acknowledge that.
And thus dies the "majority proves quality in art" claim.
Actually TDK is considered to be such a classic that it wouldn't surprise me if TDK was considered to be superior over LTROI. Nolan's probably one of the most acclaimed living directors. I personally prefer LTROI but I can still admit that.
So you're wrong about LTROI being better than TDK, eh?
As for LTROI, it's constantly on various "best of" lists even today. It's won over 70 awards. People are still talking about it and referring to it as being a classic. Even if you personally dislike it it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest it's not held in incredibly high regard.
Who are these "people" you keep talking about? Almost no one even knows LTROI exists. (And I don't dislike it...I own it and saw it before seeing LMI)
And I know it won the "Chainsaw Award" (true), but it didn't win a single major award in 2008. But LTROI certainly won more awards than Casablanca did, so it must be better, right?
"Awards" ...another failed attempt to measure art. Everyone touts them until they give the award to a movie/song a person doesn't like.
One of the dumbest things ever invented was awards for art. I guess Hollywood started it to self congratulate themselves every year and feel important and everyone else started thinking they needed to find out what the "best art" was. After all this time, we still don't know what the best movie is.
So how do you propose to prove one movie is better than another? As you've already acknowledged, no award or critics opinion or popular view can effect your personal feelings about art. It works that way for everyone...so what exactly is the point of trying to proclaim one piece of art superior to another? Nothing is accomplished in the slightest. share
And of course you feel you need to invent some motive behind that which is naturally an insult to LMI.
The only one seeing it a direct insult is you.
You mean the fact that the overwhelming majority of movie fans had no interest in LTROI? Yeah...that's a factor. Especially in regard to your "imagining" that two LMI producers would seek to avoid LMI for such a small group of people. You want to discount all that and place great importance on the "majority" of a tiny group of people who are predisposed to like a certain movie. Hey...let's go ask a group of Dixie Dregs fans who the best band is while we are at it.
Then maybe they're just avoiding LMI because they don't view it as a success. IDK. Think of whatever reason you want. The reality is they've been silent on referencing LMI when talking about this project.
And thus dies the "majority proves quality in art" claim.
You are the only one suggesting that 'majority proves quality in art'. I never said that. Go look over my posts.
So you're wrong about LTROI being better than TDK, eh?
I prefer LTROI but I'm not so insecure in my preferences that I can't admit that the general consensus is that TDK is the better film.
So how do you propose to prove one movie is better than another? As you've already acknowledged, no award or critics opinion or popular view can effect your personal feelings about art. It works that way for everyone...so what exactly is the point of trying to proclaim one piece of art superior to another? Nothing is accomplished in the slightest.
Again, you are the one trying to make this into some long-winded debate about "what is better in art".
In the real world, there are certain consensus as to what constitutes good films and bad films. 'Psycho' is considered to be a classic of cinema, 'Grownups 2' is not. Something like 'Home Alone' is considered to be a classic, but not up to the same level of Hitchcock. And so on. Obviously this is all subjective and there are certain films that many disagree on. No one is trying to suggest something is "objectively" better.
If you want to live in some sheltered 'safe space' where all films are blank slates that's your prerogative but most people don't view it that way. share
The only one seeing it a direct insult is you.
It's pretty obvious. First you invent a motive out of thin air that makes no sense but just happens to be insulting to LMI by an amazing coincidence.
Then you feel the need to defend that illogical assumption in the face of any fact which renders it silly. Sure...two LMI producers would "want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake". That is absurd on two levels.
First they produced LMI so why would they actively seek to avoid it?
Second, there is no benefit to the show for doing that even if they did somehow want to avoid their own work because there aren't enough people who are aware of the property to make any measurable difference if they catered to your "majority opinion". It's a vanishingly small number of human beings.
None of that makes sense, but of course you need to believe it against all logic so you'll keep trying to insist it's the truth.
The whole thing is a fanboy fantasy you "imagined". You took one thing you saw (They didn't mention LMI) and blew it up into something you imagined.
Then maybe they're just avoiding LMI because they don't view it as a success. IDK. Think of whatever reason you want. The reality is they've been silent on referencing LMI when talking about this project.
Or maybe it's not a negative reason at all? Got any more imagined theories that are negative toward LMI? You are pretty transparent on this one.
You are the only one suggesting that 'majority proves quality in art'. I never said that. Go look over my posts.
Seriously?
With LTROI and LMI, we have two films that have been extensively compared and the overwhelming majority opinion is that LTROI is the superior one.
With LTROI and LMI there is a considerable overlap and the bulk of those who have seen both have said the Swedish film is better.
Is one example supposed to change anything? There are people who prefer LMI but the general consensus is that LTROI is the superior film. Even most of the positive reviews that LMI received say the same exact thing. Just as it's subjective that 'Psycho' is better than 'Family Plot' but the majority opinion is that the former is superior.
Yeah...you never throw "majority opinion" into the discussion, do you? 😏
I prefer LTROI but I'm not so insecure in my preferences that I can't admit that the general consensus is that TDK is the better film.
So does that make TDK better than LTROI?
Again, you are the one trying to make this into some long-winded debate about "what is better in art".
In the real world, there are certain consensus as to what constitutes good films and bad films. 'Psycho' is considered to be a classic of cinema, 'Grownups 2' is not. Something like 'Home Alone' is considered to be a classic, but not up to the same level of Hitchcock. And so on. Obviously this is all subjective and there are certain films that many disagree on. No one is trying to suggest something is "objectively" better.
If you want to live in some sheltered 'safe space' where all films are blank slates that's your prerogative but most people don't view it that way.
You retreat to "most people" a lot, don't you? It still is a logical fallacy and still proves nothing.
What does any of that mean? I already know there are majority opinions on films. That's not news. But it proves nothing and never will. A film could be hated by every person on earth...except one...and that would not diminish the quality of the film for that one person one iota. There is no such thing as good and bad art. That's a myth. share
Or maybe it's not a negative reason at all? Got any more imagined theories that are negative toward LMI? You are pretty transparent on this one.
Maybe there is a positive reason then that the LMI producers are avoiding discussing it with a LTROI series. IDK. Feel free to come up with your interpretation.
First they produced LMI so why would they actively seek to avoid it?
Because it was a financial flop for them?
Yeah...you never throw "majority opinion" into the discussion, do you?
Notice how in all those quotes you picked I never said that the majority opinion means that it's automatically better, just that the general consensus was that LTROI is and that might be a factor as to why the showrunner is talking up the Swedish film over LMI.
So does that make TDK better than LTROI?
By itself, no. I never suggested otherwise.
What does any of that mean? I already know there are majority opinions on films. That's not news. But it proves nothing and never will. A film could be hated by every person on earth...except one...and that would not diminish the quality of the film for that one person one iota. There is no such thing as good and bad art. That's a myth.
If it's not news to you why are you so against the idea of this show wanting to associate itself more with the film that is considered by the majority to be better? share
Maybe there is a positive reason then that the LMI producers are avoiding discussing it with a LTROI series. IDK. Feel free to come up with your interpretation.
So now I have to start with your baseline that they are "avoiding discussing it"?
That's your immediate assumption when it's not mentioned. "They are avoiding it". That reveals exactly where your mindset is. And of course your imagination comes up with a motive to explain this "avoidance".
I could play the same game and claim they are "avoiding bringing up Lindqvist or Alfredson". Or maybe they are "avoiding bringing up Kåre Hedebrant or Lina Leandersson because they don't want people to associate them with this project because their careers haven't taken off". Total fantasy.
Because it was a financial flop for them?
You still clinging to that flawed view of box office after it was explained how movies only make about 20% of their gross from theaters? Just how badly do you want to believe your construct?
In terms of people who saw it, LMI was seen by well over double the number of people that LTROI was. (28 million worldwide for LMI, 12 million worldwide for LTROI) And domestically where they will try for ratings, LMI made six times what LTROI made. In addition LMI made 10 million on home video while LTROI only made 3.9 million. Social media-wise: On Facebook, LMI leads LTROI with likes 466,689 to 219,372. On Youtube despite a 2 year head start for LTROI, LMI's main trailer leads LTROI 4,939,709 views to 3,237,804 views and 6,965 likes to 4,295.
Neither is well known obviously, but LMI is clearly a more known and popular entity of the two after all these years....which translates to eyeballs.
And eyeballs is what they want for the TV show, so there is another illogical assumption on your part. You are so desperate to believe that two LMI producers would actively seek to avoid LMI that you'll believe they would willfully ignore the more popular version in the country where they are making a TV show.
Notice how in all those quotes you picked I never said that the majority opinion means that it's automatically better, just that the general consensus was that LTROI is and that might be a factor as to why the showrunner is talking up the Swedish film over LMI.
Obviously your "general consensus" doesn't translate to the general public. If that were a reason, they would "avoid" LTROI instead. Your imagination didn't use much logic when it came up with that one.
The logical thing to say would be to admit even though LMI is more popular, that number is still tiny and would not be a factor for ratings. Neither movie is going to draw a crowd to the show. They will need advertising to do that.
If it's not news to you why are you so against the idea of this show wanting to associate itself more with the film that is considered by the majority to be better?
Because there is no logical reason for them to do that. It's all in your head.
The real question is why you need to believe something so illogical this badly. Why did you feel the need to invent a motive and even term it "avoid"? That's called being a fanboy. share
So now I have to start with your baseline that they are "avoiding discussing it"?
That's your immediate assumption when it's not mentioned. "They are avoiding it". That reveals exactly where your mindset is. And of course your imagination comes up with a motive to explain this "avoidance".
I could play the same game and claim they are "avoiding bringing up Lindqvist or Alfredson". Or maybe they are "avoiding bringing up Kåre Hedebrant or Lina Leandersson because they don't want people to associate them with this project because their careers haven't taken off". Total fantasy.
You could, but they are still discussing the original film and the novel but not the remake.
You still clinging to that flawed view of box office after it was explained how movies only make about 20% of their gross from theaters? Just how badly do you want to believe your construct?
In terms of people who saw it, LMI was seen by well over double the number of people that LTROI was. (28 million worldwide for LMI, 12 million worldwide for LTROI) And domestically where they will try for ratings, LMI made six times what LTROI made. In addition LMI made 10 million on home video while LTROI only made 3.9 million. Social media-wise: On Facebook, LMI leads LTROI with likes 466,689 to 219,372. On Youtube despite a 2 year head start for LTROI, LMI's main trailer leads LTROI 4,939,709 views to 3,237,804 views and 6,965 likes to 4,295.
I'm not sure how that changes LMI not being a flop, which it was. Yes, an English-language film in a wide theatrical release made more money than a Swedish-language film in a limited one -- that was always going to be the case from the getgo just by the virtue of it being an English-language film in a wide release. LTROI did as well as it did by word of mouth and positive reviews, it didn't receive nearly as much promotion as LMI did. But it still managed to be the film that people are talking about today while LMI has largely been forgotten except as a footnote to the Swedish film.
And eyeballs is what they want for the TV show, so there is another illogical assumption on your part. You are so desperate to believe that two LMI producers would actively seek to avoid LMI that you'll believe they would willfully ignore the more popular version in the country where they are making a TV show.
Because they are. They're not calling it 'Let Me In: The Series'. They're not talking up how important the legacy of Let Me In is. They're even having this version of Eli immigrating to America from Sweden. The showrunner flat-out said "I hope fans of the novel and Swedish film appreciate this show", he didn't mention LMI at all except to say that this show would not be based off of it.
Obviously your "general consensus" doesn't translate to the general public. If that were a reason, they would "avoid" LTROI instead. Your imagination didn't use much logic when it came up with that one.
More people saw an English-language film over a Swedish-language one, that's not a huge shock. But LTROI is still the one that is considered to be superior and it is still the one that people still talk about. share
You could, but they are still discussing the original film and the novel but not the remake.
And that's it. All the motives you invented in your head are just your imagination.
I'm not sure how that changes LMI not being a flop, which it was. Yes, an English-language film in a wide theatrical release made more money than a Swedish-language film in a limited one -- that was always going to be the case from the getgo just by the virtue of it being an English-language film in a wide release. LTROI did as well as it did by word of mouth and positive reviews, it didn't receive nearly as much promotion as LMI did. But it still managed to be the film that people are talking about today while LMI has largely been forgotten except as a footnote to the Swedish film.
There is where your fanboy blinders come in to play. You'll keep claiming "LMI was a flop" even in the face of the fact that movies only make around 20% of their profit from the theatrical run. Gee...I wonder why you keep ignoring facts to cling to your claim? I wonder if you even know how much money Hammer spent on LMI. (Go ahead...quote the number on Box Office Mojo instead of the real number)
I realize that few people know about LTROI...I've been telling you about that the whole time. Few people know about LMI as well, but it does have roughly twice the profile in the US....where the TV show will be aired.
Your fantasy that LTROI is being talked about today is not supported by anything other than your imagination. The social media number...where "people are talking" says that LMI is talked about more. Not that anyone is talking about LMI either...it's like winning the Special Olympics beating LTROI on that one. A lot of people make the mistake of hanging around fans of an obscure property on the internet and thinking that a lot of people are talking about something. Comic book fans do that a lot too. "Everybody is talking about LMI" in my Facebook LMI group too. 😁
Because they are. They're not calling it 'Let Me In: The Series'. They're not talking up how important the legacy of Let Me In is. They're even having this version of Eli immigrating to America from Sweden. The showrunner flat-out said "I hope fans of the novel and Swedish film appreciate this show", he didn't mention LMI at all except to say that this show would not be based off of it.
And that's where your fanboy imagination started inventing motives for that. Motives that don't make any sense for LMI producers. You retreat to "he said" while claiming "they". No...there is no reason for LMI producers to think the way you claim they are thinking. That's one of many reason I doubt your mind-reading skills.
Having Eli come to the US...is nothing like the novel or the first movie so I wouldn't cite that as an example of LMI being completely ignored. That's LMI's thing...and one of the main whine points of LTROI fans by the way. If "they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake" they would keep it in Sweden. Almost no one is going to read these articles....the audience will see it on the screen. And let's see if there is a policeman character too.
More people saw an English-language film over a Swedish-language one, that's not a huge shock. But LTROI is still the one that is considered to be superior and it is still the one that people still talk about.
Who are these "people"? Your imagination is running wild in this thread. You started by imagining motives for LMI producers that don't make sense, now you are imagining some mythical "people" who are "still talking about LTROI". Good luck finding someone on the street who has ever heard of the book or either movie. This is really reminding me of some comic book fans I know who were recently bragging about how their favorite comic book company is outselling another comic book company...and how that means their favorite is somehow popular with the public.
And let's not pretend that LMI didn't get a great reception too if you want to pretend there is a way to measure art. It even had the disadvantage of a built in bias against it and critics still couldn't say it was bad. share
And that's it. All the motives you invented in your head are just your imagination.
It's guesswork, yes. Just as it's guesswork to suggest they're not calling it "Let Me In" because that title is more 'complex' and 'ambiguous'.
You'll keep claiming "LMI was a flop" even in the face of the fact that movies only make around 20% of their profit from the theatrical run. Gee...I wonder why you keep ignoring facts to cling to your claim?
If that was a fact then Ghostbusters would not be considered a flop with a $70 million loss. They would have just said "Hey it'll make close to a billion eventually". Studios wouldn't care as much how well films did in theaters.
No...there is no reason for LMI producers to think the way you claim they are thinking.
You keep on saying that when there are plenty. It's just reasons that you don't agree with.
Your fantasy that LTROI is being talked about today is not supported by anything other than your imagination.
Nope, it's supported by it being a big deal among film and horror fans. Whenever horror films are ranked at sites LTROI is usually among the top ones discussed. Not even just 'fanboy' sites but professional magazines like Empire. It's probably on par with Pan's Labyrinth at this point, another foreign film that's not mainstream but still a film that is remembered while other more mainstream films are forgotten.
And let's not pretend that LMI didn't get a great reception too if you want to pretend there is a way to measure art.
It did but even then most of the critics said it wasn't as good as the Swedish film. But again, you keep on saying "ways to measure art" when I am not suggesting that. share
It's guesswork, yes. Just as it's guesswork to suggest they're not calling it "Let Me In" because that title is more 'complex' and 'ambiguous'.
True. That actually just my preference. The Hammer guys didn't have a lot to do with the name so any assumption about the name would have to start there. It had more to do with the US print of the novel than a decision by Hammer. Also interesting that producers from both movies are involved.
Perusing a few articles they again and again stress that this TV is based on the novel over either movie actually. So if you want to try and wedge in the Swedish movie as a major player here, you are going to be disappointed.
If that was a fact then Ghostbusters would not be considered a flop with a $70 million loss. They would have just said "Hey it'll make close to a billion eventually". Studios wouldn't care as much how well films did in theaters.
Who are you listening to for these "it's considered a flop" things? Other people who don't understand how the business works? To hear some talk, the movie industry would have never lasted because they can't make any money. There is far more it it these days than just the theatrical run. And we are talking about 2010 when the home video market was bigger than today. They did add 10 million from home video sales alone.
You keep on saying that when there are plenty. It's just reasons that you don't agree with.
Because you are inventing reasons that don't make sense. There aren't enough LTROI fans to effect ratings for this TV show and assuming LMI producers would somehow distance from their own work is fantasy land.
Nope, it's supported by it being a big deal among film and horror fans. Whenever horror films are ranked at sites LTROI is usually among the top ones discussed. Not even just 'fanboy' sites but professional magazines like Empire. It's probably on par with Pan's Labyrinth at this point, another foreign film that's not mainstream but still a film that is remembered while other more mainstream films are forgotten.
Like I said, small niche groups of people. It's like bragging that "Everyone is talking about Watchmen" at Empire magazine and other sites that know comic books (graphic novels) exist. Meanwhile the general public would have no idea what you are talking about.
And the general public is what drives ratings for a TV show so any mention of obscure groups of fans is certainly not something that will effect the TV show and thus it would be absurd to suggest the producers are somehow making a special effort to appeal to them.
It did but even then most of the critics said it wasn't as good as the Swedish film. But again, you keep on saying "ways to measure art" when I am not suggesting that.
i.e. meaningless and proves nothing. There is no actual reason for you to even bring it up other than fanboy yowling. (I've been dying to use the word "yowling") share
"Actually LMI was mentioned in that article I linked. (and LMI was "higher regarded")
So they must be basing it in Sweden, right? Wasn't that one of the complaints about LMI...being set in the US? So surely they would avoid that since you claim they are ignoring LMI. 😎
But then, the comments I saw were talking about the novel...not the movie." - Harpo
http://fandom.wikia.com/articles/tnts-let-right-one-pilot-isnt-remake
With two movie versions of the Swedish vampire novel Let the Right One In already out there, TNT’s new pilot for a possible TV series (announced Monday) might seem like just another rehash of those previous, award-winning efforts. According to screenwriter and executive producer Jeff Davis, that’s not the case. “The TV series will not be a remake of the American version,” Davis tells Fandom. “We’re taking inspiration from the novel and the story will definitely have more of an international aesthetic.
Davis worked on the LTROI pilot script for more than a year. Originally the subject of a bidding war between A&E Studios and Showtime, the project first landed at A&E. The studio backed away earlier this year and the rights reverted to Marty Adelstein’s Tomorrow Studios. TNT scooped up the project this summer and tapped Adelstein and Davis to Executive Produce. They have similar roles on MTV’s Teen Wolf which enters its sixth and final season this fall.
Davis says the pilot will return to the original’s roots both artistically and geographically. “The pilot script currently starts in Stockholm, Sweden and sees the vampire, Eli, traveling to America with her caretaker.
The original novel deals with a friendship between Eli (who appears to be an adolescent) and a human 12-year-old boy. The book travels along the darker side of human nature. It deals with alcoholism, bullying, pedophilia, genital mutilation and other all-too-real evils. Davis says it’s from that dark well that his pilot script springs. “In this way, we’re hoping to satisfy fans of both the original movie and John Ajvide Lindqvist’s book which contains certain sinister plot elements that never made it into the movies.”
If it makes it past the pilot stage, Let the Right One In will shore up attempts by Turner’s TNT to retool its dramatic slate. 2014 hit The Last Ship moved the network past its staple stable of cop drama and procedural and into more high-concept fare. And, from Davis’ description, it seems LTROI will be right at home with the recently renewed crime-family drama Animal Kingdom, upcoming series Will (about a young William Shakespeare) and The Alienist which pits Theodore Roosevelt against criminals in New York’s gilded age.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
“In this way, we’re hoping to satisfy fans of both the original movie and John Ajvide Lindqvist’s book which contains certain sinister plot elements that never made it into the movies.”
Good to hear. share
“The pilot script currently starts in Stockholm, Sweden and sees the vampire, Eli, traveling to America with her caretaker.
Awww...they are "ruining" it by making it "Hollywood". Can't be any good now, right? share
"Awww...they are "ruining" it by making it "Hollywood". Can't be any good now, right?" - Harpo
You're the one saying that, not me.
I'm just providing clarification for something that was speculation on your part. I don't have a problem with the majority of the show being set in America. I'm much more concerned with "Eli (who appears to be an adolescent)", not sure if the character in the show is now an adolescent, or they are confused about Eli's age in the book.
But, hey, carry on looking for those hidden attacks.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
But, hey, carry on looking for those hidden attacks.
You mean like when MartenBroadcloak brought "higher regard" into the conversation out of nowhere in post #5? Your fanboy blinders are working well. Go ahead....try to figure out a way to claim I brought it up. Let's see if you can spin it.
Or another one of Tree's "Abby is evil" posts as if his opinion is some sort of final word? Just like you've never noticed anything Tree does here.
Interesting how you always miss those posts when LTROI fans wedge them in on this board.
That's how I figured out this "above the fray" and "objective" act you put on is pure horse crap. You never seem to notice the shots LTROI fans take. ...Or that they are going to all the trouble to come to this board in the first place. As usual, you had zero issue with Marten bringing up the same old "critics like LTROI more" hack argument....what a shock.
So your act just isn't going to work with me...save yourself the trouble. share
"You mean like when MartenBroadcloak brought "higher regard" into the conversation out of nowhere in post #5? Your fanboy blinders are working well. Go ahead....try to figure out a way to claim I brought it up. Let's see if you can spin it." - Harpo
People are entitled to their own opinion, or is this North Korea? Personally, I don't care what so called "professional critics" think about a film, not even Mark Kermode (who loves Let The Right One In), so I'm not inclined to argue the toss over how many people prefer one film compared to another as if that is some kind of evidential proof of quality. The same goes with awards given to films that amount to not much more than "the industry" masturbating about how good they are whilst at the same time creating division that can be used to garner higher profits.
Why would I try and claim something that can be proven wrong by scrolling up and checking who mentioned it first? I think your paranoia is showing.
"Or another one of Tree's "Abby is evil" posts as if his opinion is some sort of final word? Just like you've never noticed anything Tree does here." - Harpo
Treejam555 believes that Abby being evil makes Let Me In a better film. I fail to see how that is an attack just because you, like me, don't think she is evil. Opinions, opinions, opinions.
"Or that they are going to all the trouble to come to this board in the first place" - Harpo
Y'know, clicking the mouse on a different place on the screen is hardly a lot of "trouble". Many people, like myself, have email notifications set up for when people respond to certain boards, it's just a case of following the link.
You don't get to police the internet, this is a public board, not your "safe space". People can post stupid opinion or lies to their hearts content. If they break the rules, report them. If they are wrong, either ignore them or prove them wrong, just stop crying about it like a little girl (do you get the reference?). You manage to derail every thread into bickering about opinion, you're worse that the trolls you claim to see everywhere.
And don't try that lame "You can't tell me what to do either, if I want to stamp my feet and ruin every thread I will" defence, it is stupid.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
People are entitled to their own opinion, or is this North Korea?
No one said they were not entitled to their opinion. You attempt a straw man here.
The point was and remains that douchebag LTROI fans just can't help attacking LMI. I did not say they were not entitled to be douchebags. I'm pointing out their behavior which you somehow always miss or find a way to excuse. This time it's "they are entitled to their opinion". I agree with that, but that's not the point.
Naturally you can never find a way to defend the LMI point of view or that LMI fans have the right to object to those douchebag LTROI fan opinions, do you? Yeah...let's all pretend you are "objective". Your act doesn't work here. When a LMI fan responds to the LTROI fan deriding LMI...then you suddenly get interested in passing judgement. How very convenient.
Personally, I don't care what so called "professional critics" think about a film, not even Mark Kermode (who loves Let The Right One In), so I'm not inclined to argue the toss over how many people prefer one film compared to another as if that is some kind of evidential proof of quality. The same goes with awards given to films that amount to not much more than "the industry" masturbating about how good they are whilst at the same time creating division that can be used to garner higher profits.
On that we agree. But not really the topic at hand. Where was this opinion when it was first offered up in this thread? You had no interest in countering it then.
Why would I try and claim something that can be proven wrong by scrolling up and checking who mentioned it first? I think your paranoia is showing.
I don't know...why would you bother to check to see if your claim that I'm "imagining everything" is completely wrong? My first guess is you don't like admitting you are completely wrong about that since you've been making that claim for a while. You've been ignoring what LTROI fans do here for years so why would you start noticing now?
Treejam555 believes that Abby being evil makes Let Me In a better film. I fail to see how that is an attack just because you, like me, don't think she is evil. Opinions, opinions, opinions.
You always miss the "My opinion is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong" from Tree, don't you? Tree doesn't get to claim his opinion is worth more than everyone else's without being challenged on it. When you keep missing that, it's not a coincidence.
Let me guess...."He did say that this time!"...is that your next tactic?
Y'know, clicking the mouse on a different place on the screen is hardly a lot of "trouble". Many people, like myself, have email notifications set up for when people respond to certain boards, it's just a case of following the link.
So fans of LTROI who obviously don't care for LMI have notifications set up for the LMI board...why? No negative intent there, right?
You don't get to police the internet, this is a public board, not your "safe space". People can post stupid opinion or lies to their hearts content. If they break the rules, report them. If they are wrong, either ignore them or prove them wrong, just stop crying about it like a little girl (do you get the reference?). You manage to derail every thread into bickering about opinion, you're worse that the trolls you claim to see everywhere.
Now suddenly you are bothered by someone posting an opinion. How convenient again. The "objective" Jameron. What an amazing coincidence that once again you are only bugged by the opinion of a LMI fan responding to a LTROI fan. What are the odds, I wonder? You should at least pretend to be bothered by something a LTROI fan posts on this board occasionally.
And I did prove the opinion wrong. I'm certainly not "crying" as I point out the logical flaws. As if two Hammer execs would actively avoid LMI. And as if the public has any idea about any of these properties. The name would mean nothing one way or another except to the small group of people who know about these movies.
The claim was illogical at its core. Either it is generated by ignorance of the properties or based on fanboy motivation to get a "dig" in on LMI. Anyone with any knowledge of the name change knows it was almost an afterthought by Hammer.
But you just had to jump in to defend the LTROI fan view once again. Your bias is showing. share
"The point was and remains that douchebag LTROI fans just can't help attacking LMI" - Harpo
Where was the attack? Pointing to other people's opinions about a film is not an attack on the film.
"Naturally you can never find a way to defend the LMI point of view..." - Harpo
I have defended Let Me In. Now who's wearing blinders?
"When a LMI fan responds to the LTROI fan deriding LMI...then you suddenly get interested in passing judgement" - Harpo
I don't mind when Let Me In fans respond with an argument to prove the other wrong, it's this "Boo hoo, you can't say nasty things about a film I like" nonsense that I object to.
"On that we agree. But not really the topic at hand. Where was this opinion when it was first offered up in this thread? You had no interest in countering it then." - Harpo
It is the topic at hand. You accused me of not caring when a poster cited critic's opinions to push a point, I responded with a reason why I don't get embroiled in pointless discussions about critic's opinions. It's not that I don't care, it's that it is pointless and achieves nothing, so why bother.
"I don't know...why would you bother to check to see if your claim that I'm "imagining everything" is completely wrong? My first guess is you don't like admitting you are completely wrong about that since you've been making that claim for a while. You've been ignoring what LTROI fans do here for years so why would you start noticing now?" - Harpo
That makes no sense. You're not imagining the words on the screen, you're imagining the intent behind them. MartenBroadcloak has made roughly half a dozen posts on the Let Me In board and has never said that Let Me In is; a bad film, a copy paste exercise, derivative, dumbed down, etc, etc, and yet you treat him like he's a dyed in the wool nazi Let The Right One In fanboi. Paranoia.
"You always miss the "My opinion is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong" from Tree, don't you? Tree doesn't get to claim his opinion is worth more than everyone else's without being challenged on it. When you keep missing that, it's not a coincidence." - Harpo
Treejam555 defends his opinions with counter argument, he doesn't stamp his feet and cry "no fair". I don't think I've seen Treejam555 state that everyone else's opinion is wrong because it's different from his, I have seen this though ...
"I usually never see an original if I saw the remake first or vice visa, but LtROI is so special that I really wanted LMI to be special too. (And maybe it is, to others..)" - Treejam555Doesn't sound like he's insisting his opinion is the only acceptable opinion there, does it?
"So fans of LTROI who obviously don't care for LMI..." - Harpo
Now who's strawmanning?
"Now suddenly you are bothered by someone posting an opinion." - Harpo
No, I'm bothered by people arguing over opinion, not the opinions themselves.
"And I did prove the opinion wrong. I'm certainly not "crying" as I point out the logical flaws. As if two Hammer execs would actively avoid LMI." - Harpo
But that's not what he said, he didn't say that the Hammer Execs were "actively avoiding Let Me In". What he said was...
"I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake."This is a new adaptation of the novel, it doesn't have to be anything like either film, regardless of who's calling the shots. As far as I can remember, Hammer execs fell in love with the book, which is why they wanted to make Let Me In, so it doesn't seem at all weird that they might want to make something new and closer to the book.
Here is where you are "crying"...
"I see LTROI fans are still butthurt about LMI and terrified that other people might actually like it. So much so they still feel compelled to come to a board for a movie they don't even like to take shots at it and insist the movie they like is "better".
Same old moronic egotistical elitist douchebag behavior that has been going on for years.
And then of course comes the claim that LMI fans are somehow making it all up in their heads, right?" - Harpo
This is not pointing out logical flaws, or arguing your case, this is "crying".
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
Where was the attack? Pointing to other people's opinions about a film is not an attack on the film.
Shocking...you somehow missed the "they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake". Makes no sense other than to get a little dig in on LMI. And of course anything mentioned that disproves this claim is met with great resistance. You missed that too. He REALLY wants that to be the reason for the name even though it makes no sense. You as usual, have no problem with that. Your act is very transparent, Jams. You've never once had any problem with any LTROI fan attacking LMI on this board. Somehow you believe LTROI fans are all just objective peaceful beings who mean no harm when they come to this board to....just by accident...bring up awards, and critics as if that proves their opinion is on the "right side".
I have defended Let Me In. Now who's wearing blinders?
You have also changed what I say often to attack the version you made up. Like you just did. That straw man tactic is one of your favorites.
Did I say anything about the movie? I was talking about LMI fans point of view when engaged with a LTROI douchebag fan on this board. When do you ever point out the logical flaws in the LTROI fan argument? You even like to pretend LMI is an "American movie" because that fits the LTROI fan bias.
Now let's what you change that statement to.
I don't mind when Let Me In fans respond with an argument to prove the other wrong, it's this "Boo hoo, you can't say nasty things about a film I like" nonsense that I object to.
Ok...how is that relevant here? Are you carrying on two conversations at once or something?
Who exactly said, "Boo hoo, you can't say nasty things about a film I like"? If a LTROI wants to say illogical things, they have every right to embarrass themselves. Some of the best ones over the years are:
"Hollywood steals foreign films!"
"Americans are too lazy to read subtitles!"
"LMI is a carbon copy!....and I hate all the changes they made!"
And of course Tree's never ending insistence that everyone else is wrong to hold a different opinion of Abby...you somehow missed that one over and over.
It is the topic at hand. You accused me of not caring when a poster cited critic's opinions to push a point, I responded with a reason why I don't get embroiled in pointless discussions about critic's opinions. It's not that I don't care, it's that it is pointless and achieves nothing, so why bother.
Yes...there's the "I'm above the fray" posture. ...Well...except when a LMI fan responds...THEN you are suddenly more than willing to jump in with both feet, aren't you? You did it right in this thread.
LTROI fan tosses out inane "critics" claims again....no response from Jameron.
LMI fan responds to that illogical claim...Jameron is now more than willing to "bother" and "get embroiled". Yet another in a long line of amazing coincidences of timing by the Jam Man. You are fooling no one.
That makes no sense. You're not imagining the words on the screen, you're imagining the intent behind them.
I took the words exactly how they were presented. There is exactly one person "imagining" something...and that was by Marten. I quote: "I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake."
It doesn't actually make sense, but that doesn't stop the "imagination" of the LTROI fan fantasizing about others making a point to avoid LMI...even if they were LMI producers.
Treejam555 defends his opinions with counter argument, he doesn't stamp his feet and cry "no fair". I don't think I've seen Treejam555 state that everyone else's opinion is wrong because it's different from his, I have seen this though ...
I already know you have a selective memory when it comes to douchebag LTROI fans. Of course you'll remember that one and forget all the "LMI fans are fooling themselves" comments. Let me guess...you have no recollection of those, do you? lol...
Same old Jameron.
Now who's strawmanning?
Wait...are you claiming Tree doesn't dislike LMI now? Seriously?
Tree has exactly one motive when he comes to this board...negative comments toward LMI.
...And I didn't say he doesn't have that right before you try that straw man again. I said his history is what it is and a LMI fan certainly has the right to shoot down his nonsense.
No, I'm bothered by people arguing over opinion, not the opinions themselves.
What exactly do you think that means? A different opinion is not allowed...only the original opinion? Convenient given that LTROI fans typically start the debate with a dig at LMI.
</blockquote>
But that's not what he said, he didn't say that the Hammer Execs were "actively avoiding Let Me In". What he said was...
<blockquote>"I imagine they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake."
So "wanting people to know this is affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake" isn't "actively avoiding LMI"? O...kay... You didn't give that one much thought.
This is a new adaptation of the novel, it doesn't have to be anything like either film, regardless of who's calling the shots. As far as I can remember, Hammer execs fell in love with the book, which is why they wanted to make Let Me In, so it doesn't seem at all weird that they might want to make something new and closer to the book.
That's the impression I got as well.
This is not pointing out logical flaws, or arguing your case, this is "crying".
Not "crying" in the slightest.
share
"Shocking...you somehow missed the "they want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake". Makes no sense other than to get a little dig in on LMI." - Harpo
Lolwut?
So, if you started growing your hair and a woman told you that she thinks longer hair suits you, is that her getting a dig in and saying that you looked bad with shorter hair? You know they call that paranoia, right?
I suppose you want the benefit of the doubt over "The ambiguity of LMI might not work for the small screen", surely this isn't an often repeated dig of yours at the Let The Right One In film. That claim of yours that Let Me In is better because the title of the original precludes ambiguity. No, surely not. See how crazy it sounds when people "read between the lines" and find a "hidden dig"?
"And of course anything mentioned that disproves this claim is met with great resistance" - Harpo
This just in ... people sometimes defend their opinions. Coming up next ... The sky, is it really blue?
Mentioning that Simon Oakes is attached to the tv show is not proof that MartenBroadcloak's claim is wrong, unless you can find Oakes saying that it is based solely on Let Me In. The tv show is not a sequel to Let Me In, or the Let The Right One In film, it is its own beast.
"You've never once had any problem with any LTROI fan attacking LMI on this board. Somehow you believe LTROI fans are all just objective peaceful beings who mean no harm when they come to this board to....just by accident...bring up awards, and critics as if that proves their opinion is on the "right side"." - Harpo
Strawman and wrong.
"You have also changed what I say often to attack the version you made up. Like you just did" - Harpo
Wrong. But hey, let's pretend that "the LMI point of view" can only reference the fans, even though you mention the fans separately in the same sentence, leading the reader (me) to infer that the first mention of Let Me In was divorced from the "fans" ie the film.
You use this tactic all the time, remember this ... "I'm certainly not "crying" as I point out the logical flaws. As if two Hammer execs would actively avoid LMI."? that is not what MartenBroadcloak said, you changed it.
" When do you ever point out the logical flaws in the LTROI fan argument?" - Harpo
When it's there. Someone having a different read of a scene isn't automatically a "logical flaw".
"Ok...how is that relevant here?" - Harpo
In response to ... "When a LMI fan responds to the LTROI fan deriding LMI...then you suddenly get interested in passing judgement", it makes perfect sense. Read it again.
"Who exactly said, "Boo hoo, you can't say nasty things about a film I like"?" - Harpo
In this thread? Just you. I was paraphrasing.
"Yes...there's the "I'm above the fray" posture. ...Well...except when a LMI fan responds...THEN you are suddenly more than willing to jump in with both feet, aren't you? You did it right in this thread. " - Harpo
Wrong. My first two posts were to provide clarification for a proclaimed doubt. Since then, I've been berating you for your efforts in derailing yet another thread.
"LTROI fan tosses out inane "critics" claims again....no response from Jameron.
LMI fan responds to that illogical claim...Jameron is now more than willing to "bother" and "get embroiled". Yet another in a long line of amazing coincidences of timing by the Jam Man. You are fooling no one." - Harpo
Wrong. My third post was in response to you making a strawman claim "Awww...they are "ruining" it by making it "Hollywood". Can't be any good now, right?" How was that a "logical response" to me citing one of the producers interviews?
"I took the words exactly how they were presented" - Harpo
Wrong, you read into them something that wasn't there.
"I already know you have a selective memory when it comes to douchebag LTROI fans. Of course you'll remember that one and forget all the "LMI fans are fooling themselves" comments." - Harpo
Are you autistic? Do you not know how people talk?
"Wait...are you claiming Tree doesn't dislike LMI now? Seriously?
Tree has exactly one motive when he comes to this board...negative comments toward LMI." - Harpo
Sooo, claiming that Abby is evil is a negative comment towards Let Me In, and not just somebody's interpretation that you disagree with? And here I am believing you when you say people are entitled to their own opinions.
"No, I'm bothered by people arguing over opinion, not the opinions themselves." - Me
"What exactly do you think that means? A different opinion is not allowed...only the original opinion? Convenient given that LTROI fans typically start the debate with a dig at LMI. " - Harpo
Oh, that's so ironic. Remember when you accused me of changing your words, and then arguing against that strawman? Earlier in this thread? Guess what you just did. I actually said "not the opinions themselves" and you still tried to spin that into me insisting that only one opinion matters. Classic Harpo.
"So "wanting people to know this is affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake" isn't "actively avoiding LMI"? O...kay... You didn't give that one much thought." - Harpo
More thought than you, obviously. I refer you to my first point in this post.
Don't you ever get fed up with being wrong? But hey, carry on destroying any kind of discussion on this board with your stupid bickering over other people's opinions.
.
I'm out, unless someone makes an interesting post about the tv show. I've wasted enough time in this thread on you, Harpo.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
Lolwut?
So, if you started growing your hair and a woman told you that she thinks longer hair suits you, is that her getting a dig in and saying that you looked bad with shorter hair? You know they call that paranoia, right?
You're really stuck on your "paranoia" thing, aren't you?
Care to explain why it is logical to assume two LMI producers would "want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake"? Got anything remotely logical to explain that one? If there is another reason other than to take a shot at LMI, I would love to hear it.
I suppose you want the benefit of the doubt over "The ambiguity of LMI might not work for the small screen", surely this isn't an often repeated dig of yours at the Let The Right One In film. That claim of yours that Let Me In is better because the title of the original precludes ambiguity. No, surely not. See how crazy it sounds when people "read between the lines" and find a "hidden dig"?
Lolwut indeed.
Are you confusing "ambiguous" with "better"? Here..let me help with some handy links so you don't make that mistake for the 20th time.
Ambiguous: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ambiguous
Better: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/better?s=t
See the difference now?
My preference is the more ambiguous title of Let Me In rather than a title which alerts the audience that there is a definite right and wrong choice in the movie. Others of course could prefer the less ambiguous title. Neither is superior. I like the freedom of interpretation that LMI affords me.
This just in ... people sometimes defend their opinions. Coming up next ... The sky, is it really blue?
Mentioning that Simon Oakes is attached to the tv show is not proof that MartenBroadcloak's claim is wrong, unless you can find Oakes saying that it is based solely on Let Me In. The tv show is not a sequel to Let Me In, or the Let The Right One In film, it is its own beast.
This just in, Jameron once again only has a problem with defending an opinion when it's a LMI fan responding to a LTROI fan. What a shock.
It does prove how illogical it is to ASSUME (and that's all Marten's claim is) that somehow two LMI producers would actively seek to ""want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake". That doesn't make any sense and there is certainly nothing wrong with pointing out what an illogical assumption that is. But of course, you have a big problem with that being pointed out as usual, don't you? lol...
I didn't say anything about it being a sequel to LMI so no idea what you are on about there.
I point out the logical flaws. As if two Hammer execs would actively avoid LMI."? that is not what MartenBroadcloak said, you changed it.
What are you talking about? That's what he said.
"They want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake"
So again...why would two LMI producers want to actively avoid LMI? That makes no sense.
When it's there. Someone having a different read of a scene isn't automatically a "logical flaw".
Weird how you never notice it when it's a LTROI fan. Like you seriously somehow always missed Tree's "LMI fans are fooling themselves". Amazing how you did that and then try to appear objective.
In response to ... "When a LMI fan responds to the LTROI fan deriding LMI...then you suddenly get interested in passing judgement", it makes perfect sense. Read it again.
Nice. Thanks for backing up what I was pointing out about you. You just illustrated how you read a LMI fan's response to a LTROI fan and actually see it as "Boo hoo, you can't say nasty things about a film I like". That seriously seems to be the only way you can see it.
In this thread? Just you. I was paraphrasing.
And you did it again. ..By "paraphrasing". Also known as "Straw man". I didn't say that at all, but of course that's how YOU see it.
This after you actually jumped on me for rephrasing "They want people to know that this is more affiliated with the Swedish novel and film over the remake". Which is not different than my "actively wanting to avoid LMI".
Wrong. My first two posts were to provide clarification for a proclaimed doubt. Since then, I've been berating you for your efforts in derailing yet another thread.
And of course you felt no need to point out a LTROI fan derailing the thread by submitting a mindless speculation about the motives of producers who made LMI wanting to avoid LMI. The conversation was going to be friendly until that douchebag fanboy fantasy claim. But that's always fine with you. Yeah...same old Jameron. Do you actually believe that you can only attack LMI fans over and over and not have your phony objective act be obvious?
Wrong. My third post was in response to you making a strawman claim "Awww...they are "ruining" it by making it "Hollywood". Can't be any good now, right?" How was that a "logical response" to me citing one of the producers interviews?
I already know you suddenly felt the need to respond when it was the LMI fan as usual. Suddenly you demanded "logic" after letting Marten's illogical claim go unchallenged.
I see you avoided the question. Are you actually claiming that Tree does not dislike LMI?
Sooo, claiming that Abby is evil is a negative comment towards Let Me In, and not just somebody's interpretation that you disagree with? And here I am believing you when you say people are entitled to their own opinions.
I also notice you somehow twisted "ambiguous" into me claiming LMI is better...but have never noticed Tree's years of attacks on LMI with the "evil Abby" being one of the tactics that LMI fans were "fooling themselves' about.
How surprising! You find something insulting toward LTROI in "less ambiguous" but defend all comments about LMI from LTROI fans. Oh yeah...you're REAL objective, Jameron. You really could not be more obvious.
Oh, that's so ironic. Remember when you accused me of changing your words, and then arguing against that strawman? Earlier in this thread? Guess what you just did. I actually said "not the opinions themselves" and you still tried to spin that into me insisting that only one opinion matters. Classic Harpo.
I already know that you only jump in when a LMI offers up a different opinion. This thread is just the latest example. It was my opinion you felt the need to counter.
share
"They've been talking about this for a while, but so far nothing." - Harpo
They have started the casting process.
It was dropped by A&E but TNT have picked it up and ordered a pilot.
.
- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE
http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story share
They have started the casting process.
It was dropped by A&E but TNT have picked it up and ordered a pilot.
I'm starting to get to the "believe it when I see it" stage at this point. share
> TNT
Why? Was the original concept too bloody or dark (the gender-bending stuff) for A+E TV?
Maybe there's an opening for a "LMI" TV show on A+E then, to render the debate in this thread moot.