[ SECRET POST #3778 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3778 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________


09.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #541.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. http://i.imgur.com/b4Dsvnf.png

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry OP. I couldn't watch the movie because it was a bit overly cged and I always have trouble watching films with too much uncanney valley. I always get distracted and get taken out of the story.

[greghousesgf]

I never saw this but every other Roald Dahl adaptation is too different from the books.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I'm sure we will. He's too popular of an author for Hollywood to avoid indefinitely. It may take a while, that's all.

[(Anonymous)]

This wasn't the first Dahl book to become a movie, so I see no reason why it would have to be the last.

[arcadiaego]

I'm not sure why it didn't do well; it was a nice children's movie. I thought the CGI on Rylance was incredible, and he was lovely in the part. I don't think there will be any lack of Dahl movies in the future though, he wrote so many stories, and he's been popular for a long time now.

[randomdrops]

I feel like it was in the theater for two seconds, which could account for the shitty audience reception?? I have no idea. It's on my Netflix To Watch list but I haven't sat down yet. I'm hesitant, mostly because of the heavy cgi, but also because this book holds such a special place in my memories.

[ketita]

I couldn't really get through it :X
Like the first anon said, there was so much CG I found it kind of distracting. And there was something kind of... too weird and silly for me about it. Though that might just be age haha

[(Anonymous)]

As the anon said OP, the CGI took me away from the story. Also, the music wasn't John William's best score (then again, neither was his score for The Force Awakens either, IMO). It should have gone to Patrick Doyle or Michael Giacchino.

[(Anonymous)]

I watched it on netflix and really enjoyed it. I can understand the CGI being a drawback for people because I wasn't always sold on how they did the giant, but there were parts in the middle (especially when they go to collect dreams) that I'm so sad I didn't get to see in theatres. Just incredibly beautiful.

[tcex28]

I'm sorry. It was turgid. Wanted to make the story more 'profound' while simultaneously stripping it of its horror (and also much of its basic narrative momentum).

Cosgrove Hall version 4lyfe.

[(Anonymous)]

I tried watching it but I don't think I got more than 20 minutes in. It was just 'meh' to me.

I doubt that's true, but...

[(Anonymous)]

what is it you want adapted? There have been quite a few adaptations and I don't think most need remakes (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory definitely didn't). Are you holding out for The Twits or The Minpins?

Re: I doubt that's true, but...

[alexi_lupin]

There is a perfectly lovely adaptation of Danny the Champion of the World but I wouldn't say no to a cinematic film.