Dismay among the Buffistas can't be overstated, I think.
I know right? buffistas moaning about this movie all over the site.
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Dismay among the Buffistas can't be overstated, I think.
I know right? buffistas moaning about this movie all over the site.
Apparently a fair number of James M. Cain fans thought the 1946 movie "The Postman Always Rings Twice" was awful and insufficiently faithful to his book. (Interesting in light of the fact that today it is considered a Noir classic.) At any rate an interviewer asked Cain if he thought the movie makers had ruined his novel. "Heck No" he said pointing a copy on his bookshelf, "Its right over there". That's the attitude I intend to take if this version of Buffy gets made. The new movie won't ruin it. The Buffy I love is still there on DVD and comic books and probably eventually SciFi reruns.
Ignore it. It's like Highlander 2 or the Grey Gardens with Drew Barrymore.
The press release is just a trial balloon anyway, one that should have worked sufficiently well to frighten off any financiers.
I heard good things about Grey Gardens.
I'm wondering how Surrogates will score on the Bruce Willis Toupeé Index - generally speaking, the closer the movie comes to showing his natural hairline, the better it is.
It should be great then, Theodosia. His "surrogate" sports a really bad weave, while his real self is au naturel.
I heard good things about Grey Gardens.
I'm ignoring it!
I've always heard that story about Raymond Carver, not James M. Cain. Edit: which doesn't mean anything. I'm sure it's apocryphal, one way or the other.
And I just saw it attributed to Raymond Chandler.
As you say, probably apocryphal. But even if it is not factual, it is true.
Hmmm. Did I just defend truthiness?
Truthfully, yes.