The Furious Angels
FA Discussion => Off Topic => Topic started by: Anonymous on May 18, 2004, 04:33:33 am
-
Now this is where I get really pissed off. I have an extensive library of books at home, most of which I have read, and a month ago I was looking for something to read, and I found a novel called the Day after Tommorow. It is an amazing book, and I was pretty damned impressed by it, and on the plane back from South Africa, this guy said, 'You know they are making a film about it?' and I got even more hyped up abou this book. Having just read the book I thought this was a godsend. So when I got home I went onto the website for the film and I was slightly concerned when I saw a great big picture of a flooded New York, seeming that this never happened in the book, infact, I recall them never even going to new york. But I thought that they might be using a bit of artistic licence and I let the case rest.
Now I have come to realise that some Hollywood producer thought that it would be a great idea to make a film about nuclear aftermath. Great. Apart from one thing. YOU DON'T STEAL THE NAME OF A GOOD BOOK TO DO SO! Ahh, I think I feel a bit better now. Damn those name stealing fancy pants.
-
Ive seen the trailer for the film about 3 months ago it looked very good, i guessed it was based on a novel/book as most films are, but what was the book about, the same thing?
There are many films that are called the same thing but are completly different i.e. problem child
The origonal Problem Child was a horror movie about a 7 year old boy who goes around killing people, this movie was banned and never heard of again, people tryed to get it rereleased but it didn't work.
The second problem child was a child comedy staring one of those now old pervy actors that always did films with children, it was ur typical child humor, but no way compares to home alone etc.
2 completely different films named after the same thing... just works out that way i suppose.
-
I've seen a movie called Lord of the Rings that was about something else entirely...admittedly, cheap porn knockoffs of films (see: shaving ryan's privates, good will humping, etc) probably don't count in this section....ah well
There are only so many titles that can be thought of, they must overlap somewhere.
-
:| Huh, now you've got me confused. A nuclear aftermath? Im pretty sure that The Day After Tomorrow is about global warming creating a shitload of storms and floods.. At least thats what they said in the trailer... :)
-
i also thought that the day after tomorow was about how we end up dstroying ourselves and global warming decides to create a load of storms that destroy everything.
Tnen again maybe some countries thought that these storms were created by some country so launched their nukes for some reason
-
That was a good book.
Not even remotely the same topic as the movie, though. Now I'm wondering why there wasn't some sort of lawsuit about this....
-
Check out "Under Siege" the movie, then read "Under Siege" the novel by Dean Koontz.
-
That's rather surprising...I mean, you would think people affliated with the novel wouldn't be too happy that their title is blatantly being used without any kind of compensation.
-
Mansfield Park! A beautiful book, arguably not one of Austen's best novels, but my favorite nonetheless. I heard they were going to turn it into a movie, and I groaned. It was a cute movie, it's true, but how they managed to change so much of it so it would turn out to be nothing like the book is beyond me.
My opinion; if Hollywood wants to bastardize good books, go ahead, but at least do it under a different name.
-
Ummmmm. Actually, i believe the title came from the 60's movie The Day After, which was about nuclear apocalypse (probably the movie you looked up). And i'm not even sure of that. Because this movie The Day After Tomorrow is about an enormous storm that basically consists of every natural disaster happening at once, not nuclear apocalypse. I'm pretty sure this is the one you. So technically, your book probably stole its name from The Day After (though it may not have), which im pretty sure that the movie The Day After Tomorrow did as well. Also, "the day after tomorrow" is a really common phrase, so i wudnt be surprised if it was just coincidence. Plus, The Day After Tomorrow will be a kickass movie. How can you beat mass destruction on a global level? You just can't.
-
Plus, The Day After Tomorrow will be a kickass movie. How can you beat mass destruction on a global level? You just can't.
You really can't. The entertainment value is so rad. It's probably not going to be a movie where you're going to have to think very hard. I imagine it'll go something like this for most of the movie.
Arbitrary Scientist #1: "EGATS! Every volcano on earth is erupting amidst massive earthquakes, tidal waves and colliding hurricanes!"
Arbitrary Scientist #2: "We must warn the president!"
President: *insert collective plan to pacify the chaotic masses while saving the world from certain destruction*
*NATURE ATTACKS*
*Running*
*Screaming*
*Two young people are brought together by impossible odds and common tramatic experiences*
*Running*
*Screaming*
*Enacting of a whirl-wind plan to save the human race*
*The plan is jeopardized by:
A) A traitor
B) Another impossible odd
C) A moral dilemma - "do I save him or her?"
*Plan is miraculously fulfilled*
*Humanity is saved*
*Two young people live happily ever after*
Yep...I hope it won't be that ludacris, but movies featuring a vengeful nature are often capable of being simplfied to something similar.
-
You left out being frozen in nuclear winter. I believe a saw a movie poster of a icelandic New York City, which was covered in snow and only the high rise buildings are above the level of the snow. That and you can only see Lady Liberty's Tourch.
I'm not so sure about this one though. I mean, we've seen these type of movies show up over and over, whether it be attacking aliens, or asteroids from movie like Deep Impact, Armageddon, and Independence Day. Of course, there's a lot of potential in a movie like this. Two out of the previous three mentioned went on to do very well in the box office. Movies with catostrophic events appeal greatly to audiences because everyone would want an idea of what it would be like to be in imminent doom. The thing is though, I'm not sure about this one. It seems that too much is happening (keep in mind, this is from no previous knowledge of the story and/or book). I mean, it seems pretty cool, but friggin' huge storms and hurricanes, volcanoes erupting, NYC freezing over, etc...it just seems too much. I hope the actors can pull it off to make a convincing story, but other than that I think the only thing this movie has got going for it is the visually stunning graphics and scenes of death and destruction.
-
I believe you're still missing the point. MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MAYHEM AND DESTRUCTION. If the actors can run and scream, it will be good enough for me. I really like movies that make you think and with really good storylines. But every once in a while, i just wanna see a movie where everything goes to hell.
-
It'll be in the vain of Armeggedon or Independance Day, I imagine. Recognizable places getting destroyed by something improbable, yet not impossible. I believe that the true rules of global warmingness (we already got El Nino and that's not a big deal) will not be followed. Oh well, lots of special effects and it'll be a winner.
-
That doesn't seem to be the plot of this movie. The plot appears to be the prediction of every natural disaster happening at once, and of course it comes true. I think Siren put it best.
-
ALIENS AND HURRICANES AND TORNADOS AND WHIRLPOOLS AND EARTHQUAKES AND FIRESTORMS AND EXPLOSIONS AND IMPLOSIONS AND RADIATION AND TIDAL WAVES AND TSUNAMIS AND SASHIMI AND SUPERNOVAS AND BLACKHOLES AND LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS AND OHMYGODLOOKBEHINDYOUGAAAAAAAAAH!!!!
*head explodes*
-
:|
-
What? *blinks* Why's everyone staring at me? Is there something on my face?
....
I'm going to go now...
-
YOu people don't understand! The book was published mid 60's, so i think that it was probably coincedence that it had the similar name as a film. But the book is sabout a guy who sees his fathers killer and is drawn into a massive political conspirisy that is frankly qiute mind-boggling. THere is definitly no global warming or nuclear aftermath in it. So they did steal it. and that is that.
-
AJAX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY DID NOT STEAL THE NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hardly a day goes by that i do not say the phrase "the day after tomorrow." It is an insanely commmon phrase. It's not surprising that a book and movie both ended up using it for their title. In fact, I'm surprised more haven't done it.
P.S. Very nice catalyt.
-
i have to agree with Soma, the day after tommorow is insanely common, you use it all the time without realising so it can really be stealing the name of it.
catalyst may i just say that that was absolute genius
-
So who saw it? I want to know what your thoughts are on the film. Was the plot bad? Was the film saved by amazing special effects? Or was it just an overall good movie?
-
Ive seen it, very good film indeed. Especially the ravaging wolves!!!!!!!!!!!
RUN THEY ARE BEHIND YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
-
Entertaining. I'm good at suspending my disbelief, so I'm much less critical of movies than most of my friends. I felt I got my money's worth. I'm in San Luis Obispo, so we probably could have survived that kind of weather (as long as the tornados and tsunamis didn't do us in).
-
i saw the day after tomarrow. It is a terrible movie with no plot. It has great special affects.
-
I saw it. In terms or a utter destruction everything goes to hell kinda movie i thought they did a really good job. Plus it has a good moral about global warming and pollution which i think everyone needs to listen to because our planet has been getting fucked up for years and this is the only thing since Captain Planet that i can think of that has brought up the issue. It was also really fun making jokes in the movie and pissing people off. "Look at this view of Sweden" O MY GOD IT TURNED INTO A GIANT RED CIRCLE!!! *everyone stares in confusion cos they are stupid*. lol. In 50 years i se this movie on mystery science theatre cos there are so many things to make fun of randomly in it.
-
I just got back from the movie, it was bad, dont think it was horrible. It had some reallly good special effects (except for some of the wolves scenes). Being a man of science, watching many of the "theoretical" extreme effects of extreme natural disasters gave me a few laughs. I added a couple more chuckles at the "love story" they threw in there. With all the millions of people dying, there's always time to put in a love story where the characters go through the movie seemingly oblivious to anything around them as long as they can stare into each others eyes. 1 Unenthusiastic thumb down.
-
It was okay. The special effects, like everyone else noted, were good. The plot was mostly non-existent...and, I'm sorry, but when you have a moral tale to tell, you don't have to HIT ME OVER THE HEAD WITH IT! Greenhouse effect = bad; Green Peace = gud. I get it. Everytime anyone said anything at all about pollution, it just came off preachy and silly.
I'm in Los Angeles. People literally stood up and cheered at the part about American's illegally crossing the border into Mexico. So some of the political humor worked.
I'm convinced to this day that Dennis Quaid will never be able to pick a good movie. I'm actually leaning toward believing, instead, that he sucks as an actor. Whenever that british guy had anything to say, no matter how silly, it sounded really thoughtful and clever. Whenever Quaid opened his mouth I got ready to puke.
The wolves and that ship were the most transparent plot devices ever known to man. Seriously.
And, finally, why is that people are so goddamn stupid in disaster movies? If I were in that position, I would have put on a few layers (come on, these are NEW YORKERS they can layer right?), taken a goddamn duffel bag and gone to town at a grocery store, half under snow or not. Then I would have hiked up to the coolest, richest, most bad ass house on the East Side and comfortably sat out the storm. If I needed more food, hell, that is what canned goods are for. Psh-shaw.
-
I hate to sound like a fool but if they did that then there would be no story-line what-so-ever, at least some people died unnessesarily. Otherwise quite frankly it would have been boring.
However I did particularly like the massive wave that flood the city, almost scary.
-
Oh man, I would kill myself rather than having a tsunami coming at me...
Or drown. I dont like that concept at all. Better put a gun to your head than drown. I mean, just think of it! Your holding your breath, and you have like 30-60 seconds to think about your end of life, and when you can't hold your breath anymore you let go and water floods into you. *shiver* :|
-
Well, when you put it that way. Ah crap now im never going to swim again.... :|
-
Yeah, I agree Orasu, worst way to go, except, in my opinion, being buried alive. Kill Bill 2 anybody? That bit scared me proper when she was buried alive. (That really was a bad film) There was too much boring talking, no plot (I'm not saying that's the point of this film) and the final fight, they started off doing crazy chair sword fighting, then she just did the finishing move on him, and he fell over! His chest didn't even explode! I feel shortchanged..
-
Oh yea, being buried alive.
But I think that would require that you were just put in a hole and then be buried in dirt, getting it in your mouth and such. In a cauffin would just be boring until you fainted without oxygen
-
Drowning would be one of the more peaceful ways to go imo.
Burning, now THAT is a bad way to die.
-
Hmm, i disagree. Drowing to me is worse. Realize you never got to do whatever. Realize you never got to play MxO. Then you panic and die.
Burning you would be pretty much screaming in pain, not thinking much. Maybe looking forward to death..
Any other bad ways to die while we're at it :)?
The most peaceful way to die would be locked in a room ( I wouldnt do it voluntarily of course) and just fainted out of lack of oxygen. Not to painful. Of course, you could still panic, and start whamming into the walls or something.
-
Surely waiting to die of oxygen loss is the same kind of thing as waiting to drown? I'd hate any slow drawn out death where there is a feeling of inevitable death that you cannot escapr from.. (happy this, isn't it? :))
-
It was okay. The special effects, like everyone else noted, were good. The plot was mostly non-existent...and, I'm sorry, but when you have a moral tale to tell, you don't have to HIT ME OVER THE HEAD WITH IT! Greenhouse effect = bad; Green Peace = gud. I get it. Everytime anyone said anything at all about pollution, it just came off preachy and silly.
I think it was good that the moral tale was so blatant. Whenever i talk to people about global warming or the impending water crisis or anything like that they all go, "Well imma be dead so why should i care?" This movie took that point and basically said well if it happened today you would care so start reversing the problem cos we really know shit about nature so it just might happen. People just don't give a shit about nature anymore, and they need to be hit over the head with the message that they should over and over again until they do care.
-
I guess it is. But still, I think dying of oxygen loss is more of a fade, compared to drowning. You have all tried holding your breath under water right? Think about that, and that last moments before you can't stay underwater anymore. It's a funny thing, your throath or whatever is sorta 'gulping' for water.
Then imagine being trapped underwater, being at that very moment. And then you can't hold it anymore, and you feel water flowing into your lungs, and then you are gone..
-
Burning would be way worse. As your body heats up your muscles contract fracturing your bones in thousands of places and curling your spine back against itself. It is not just instant death, it is long and drawn out and it would be so insanely painful in those minutes that you would probably do anything to stop it. With drowning their isn't nearly as much pain. Rather it is the panic that would really suck and your muscles would start convulsing in an attempt to breath. It would hurt, but not nearly as much as burning alive.
-
Also, I believe that dying from lack of oxygen is different from drowning.I think in the case of being buried alive the coffin would begin filling with carbon dioxide and you would black out. Sure you would asphyxiate, but i think before it happened you would black out and not really feel anything. I might be wrong here though.
-
I agree of course. But the panic is why I would hate drowining. In extreme pain, you aren't thinking much except for being in extreme pain.
I think I would prefer dying of old age :).
Some jolly discussion we are having, eh? :)
-
Actually I'm pretty sure that if you were on fire you would be panicing and running around trying to make the burning stop. Oh, i forgot. If it got hot enough your nails and hair would melt into your skin.
I would prefer getting old and dying in my sleep too lol.
-
If it was my preference, I'd want my death to mean something. You know, saving a loved one, or (in extreme cases) the world. Unlikely, but it's the way I'd want to go (regardless of the method).
It saddens me so much that there's so much pointless and preventable death occurring all the time. Just last November, a good friend of mine and my friend's girlfriend died in a car accident, simply because the guy behind her was tailgating, speeding, and not paying attention. My friend was going to give her a promise ring that weekend, too.
Dammit, sometimes human nature just flat out sucks.
-
I agree. There far to many pointless and preventable deaths that occur. This last independence day my cousin and uncle were killed in a car accident by a girl who was driving to fast and being reckless. I really have a thing against people speeding, especially because they are never really going anywhere. They speed and drive unsafely and its for no purpose but to get somewhere that they dont need to be just a couple minutes sooner. It's rediculous. And ya, sometimes human nature does flat out suck. But then again, other times it is the greatest thing in the world. I guess its just one of those things.
-
Yeah, I agree Orasu, worst way to go, except, in my opinion, being buried alive. Kill Bill 2 anybody? That bit scared me proper when she was buried alive. (That really was a bad film) There was too much boring talking, no plot (I'm not saying that's the point of this film) and the final fight, they started off doing crazy chair sword fighting, then she just did the finishing move on him, and he fell over! His chest didn't even explode! I feel shortchanged..
I despise you. I would take the time to explain why, but it just isn't worth it.
-
im going to see it this weekend so i hope its good. it sounds like its got a good plot so ill post what its like when i get back!!!!
-
Sorry Soma, I have exams and was just making a quick stop. You havn't seen the movie?
-
Lol, Erebus is good at that...
-
I am extremely sorry if I have spoiled the film for anyone; Soma, I hope I have not ruined it for you entirely.. however, I thought what I said didn't reveal that much that wasn't obvious, I mean, the name of the film is Kill Bill! I didn't say exactly how it happened, you can still hopefully enjoy the film.. sorry again, and to anyone else who has not seen the film and read my post, I'll think before I speak next time.. and Soma, I hope your hatred of me will pass?
-
I want to know how it is...
just to know
-
No I'm not mad that you revealed what happens. Kill Bill: Volumes 1 and 2 are my fav movies of all time, i saw Volume 2 opening day. I'm pissed that you thought the second one was cheap because there wasn't enough fighting and action. If you saw that movie for fighting and action, then that was just your own damn stupid fault. No need to put the movie down because of it.
-
Soma, dude, you gotta seriously lay off reaming people for their own opinions and expectations with respect to literature and entertainment.
I thought Kill Bill Vol 2 was boring, although I still liked it. I understood the reason behind it, the concept, and I still didn't appreciate the ending. The first one was much more along the lines of what I enjoy - given the second was supposed to be a continuation, a sequel, to the first I expected the same type of drama. Obviously Tarantino is the creater and mastermind and he's managed to wow audiences before, during and after this sequel so I'm not going to quarrel with his skills. But I ought not be forced to quarrel with a faction member because we differ on our definitions of entertainment... :P
-
Whoa Soma, sorry again! I loved the first film also, loved its cult aspect and tarantinoness, the music, the action, it was so polished, but, in my opinion, the second was a let-down in comparison to the first, and while I didn't go into the movie expecting to be dazzled with enormous fight-scenes, I didn't go in expecting to be bored. I knew there would be dialogue, but some of the dialogue was just ridiculous. eg "Could you do what you did? Of course you Could." Don't get me wrong, the film had great bits, like Pi Mei (spelt his name wrong probably), he was awesome! *flicks invisible beard*, but I just felt it was a let down. It did finish off the series nicely, but not in a way that excited me. I also realise that there are lots of symbolic references in both films, and perhaps if I knew these I would appreciate the second one more? Also thanks for backing me up Muse: Soma I'm sorry (again) if I've offended you and your favourite films.