Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:25 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
BEAUTIFUL CREATURES 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3167
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Click here for the review of Beautiful Creatures

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!


Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:05 pm
Profile WWW
Gaffer

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:50 am
Posts: 37
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Call me snarky, but isn't it good practice to define acronyms before you use them?

I first looked at the first sentence:
Quote:
Beautiful Creatures is the latest attempt by a Hollywood studio to cash in on the popularity of a YA series.


What the heck is YA?

I looked at the second sentence. Nope. Not there. I looked at the last paragraph. Nope, not there either. I glazed at the article to see if there were parentheses somewhere defining the term. Nope.

Apparently, it means "young adult" after a Google. Did this term gain popularity or something?

In any case, James, if you're curious, I never bothered to actually read the article. As you know, internet readers are finicky. If there is a glaring issue like that, we won't bother to read the rest.


Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:08 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Mother Goose wrote:
Call me snarky, but isn't it good practice to define acronyms before you use them?


Hi snarky, nice to meet you!

Mother Goose wrote:
I first looked at the first sentence:
Quote:
Beautiful Creatures is the latest attempt by a Hollywood studio to cash in on the popularity of a YA series.


What the heck is YA?

I looked at the second sentence. Nope. Not there. I looked at the last paragraph. Nope, not there either. I glazed at the article to see if there were parentheses somewhere defining the term. Nope.

Apparently, it means "young adult" after a Google. Did this term gain popularity or something?

In any case, James, if you're curious, I never bothered to actually read the article. As you know, internet readers are finicky. If there is a glaring issue like that, we won't bother to read the rest.


The use of the YA acronym for Young Adult is pretty common these days, especially with the massive popularity of Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games, etc. And you found out after what I assume was a 20 second Google search, so I don't really see what the problem is. Hey, you learnt something! Congrats!

And you finally lost all sympathy and moved into entitled crybaby territory with your last paragraph. Are you serious? You chose to boycott a review because James didn't spell out an increasingly common acronym to you? That's just petty...


Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:23 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:57 pm
Posts: 442
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
YA has been around for at least 20 years, I known that it always meant Young Adult. It's not a glaring problem with JB's review, it's a glaring problem with YOU and ONLY YOU Goose.


Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:20 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Mother Goose wrote:
Call me snarky, but isn't it good practice to define acronyms before you use them?



FYI - this post made me LOL. There's no need to be PC, your name is Mother Goose, so you probably had PMS when you made the post. If that last comment offended you, I apologize and would like to invite you over to a BBQ at my house. It's BYOB, though.

Please RSVP ASAP.


Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:59 am
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:50 am
Posts: 37
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Awkward Beard Man wrote:
And you finally lost all sympathy and moved into entitled crybaby territory with your last paragraph. Are you serious? You chose to boycott a review because James didn't spell out an increasingly common acronym to you? That's just petty...


You misunderstand. I wasn't boycotting. I couldn't understand what YA meant, so I stopped reading. What makes you think that I was boycotting him?

I was simply informing him that, from my perspective, he should have defined the term before use. However, as it turns out the term is apparently well known. So no harm done. I've read Reelviews for more than half a decade now, and I can't recall encountering an acronym (other than the blase like www or asap, I suppose) that I had found so jarring. I certainly never stopped reading an article because of such an acronym. I also like, for example, Ebert's column, and I can't recall Ebert ever using an acronym like YA. As long time reader, I felt that I should point that out.

James wrote some time ago about the way people browse his site, and he made the point that if someone sees something they don't like, he's immediately lost a reader. That's the way the internet works, and anybody who had worked as a web designer knows it. Readers have very short attention spans.

I do thank the crowd here for informing me that I'm suffering from premenstrual syndrome though. It's a wonder I can think with all this blood seeping out of my vagina.


Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:38 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Mother Goose wrote:
I do thank the crowd here for informing me that I'm suffering from premenstrual syndrome though. It's a wonder I can think with all this blood seeping out of my vagina.


:o

Now how in the world were you able to figure that out!?!? I didn't define any of those acronyms before I used them! Astonishing!


Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:52 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3167
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Mother Goose wrote:
Call me snarky, but isn't it good practice to define acronyms before you use them?

I first looked at the first sentence:
Quote:
Beautiful Creatures is the latest attempt by a Hollywood studio to cash in on the popularity of a YA series.


What the heck is YA?


It's an easy enough change to add the definition (which I have done). However, I was of the opinion that YA had achieved a level of familiarity for which a definition was unneeded (like DVD).


Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:00 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1095
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
6th place at the box office, ouch. Thankfully that should spare us from any more of these Twilight-esque movies for a while.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:01 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
KWRoss wrote:
6th place at the box office, ouch. Thankfully that should spare us from any more of these Twilight-esque movies for a while.

Yes, thank you Die Hard!


Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:34 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 442
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Vexer wrote:
KWRoss wrote:
6th place at the box office, ouch. Thankfully that should spare us from any more of these Twilight-esque movies for a while.

Yes, thank you Die Hard!


I think you mean "thank you Nicolas Sparks." Safe Haven (which Die Hard barely beat) was the real culprit here. I doubt many people saw Die Hard as an alternative to Beautifu Creatures... but the sappiness of Sparks appeals to women of all ages!


Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:48 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3731
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
Shade2 wrote:
Vexer wrote:
KWRoss wrote:
6th place at the box office, ouch. Thankfully that should spare us from any more of these Twilight-esque movies for a while.

Yes, thank you Die Hard!


I think you mean "thank you Nicolas Sparks." Safe Haven (which Die Hard barely beat) was the real culprit here. I doubt many people saw Die Hard as an alternative to Beautifu Creatures... but the sappiness of Sparks appeals to women of all ages!

Thankfully the woman i'm getting to know right now is immune to the charm of Sparks.


Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:00 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3167
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
KWRoss wrote:
6th place at the box office, ouch. Thankfully that should spare us from any more of these Twilight-esque movies for a while.


Sadly, there are so many in development that we'll be subjected to them for years. The studios, looking for the next TWILIGHT or HUNGER GAMES, have optioned just about every fantasy-tinged YA book around and many of them are already in development (one or two are finished).

But at least we won't be subjected the second book in the Caster series. THE HOST is up next. Curiously, it's also being released opposite a Bruce Willis film (GI JOE: RETALIATION). As with A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD and BEAUTIFUL CREATURES, there will be zero crossover audience.


Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:21 am
Profile WWW
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2233
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
The Host actually looks very intriguing to me. Plus, it's directed by the usually reliable Andrew Niccol.


Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:34 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3167
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
ilovemovies wrote:
The Host actually looks very intriguing to me. Plus, it's directed by the usually reliable Andrew Niccol.


Take a look at who wrote it and tell me if you're still optimistic.

Keep in mind that the "usually reliable" Bill Condon directed BREAKING DAWN.


Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:36 am
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1428
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
I think I am one of the few (or non-existent) here who read the Twilight books. Being both a foreigner and a completish, I was immune to the book's "unreadable" language because English is my second language late in life (although Meyers seriously isself-indulgent and could rambled on and on). My opinions are pretty much reflected in James' movie reviews (trashy OK with the first and third; the second one boring with the full blown self absorption by Bella; the fourth really bizarre but some mild tension going on until it's completely deflated by the climax).

Afterwards I read The Host, out of better reviews and a somewhat more interesting-looking storyline. I can't tell if it's good writing by normal standard yet, but it is certainly better told than Twilight. There is some forward momentum, and a few really tense scenes. More importantly, the story was somewhat thought out beforehand and would definitely make a solid foundation for a good movie better than Twilight for sure. I could see why Andrew Niccol was interested to adapt and direct it.


Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:18 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2233
Post Re: BEAUTIFUL CREATURES
James Berardinelli wrote:
ilovemovies wrote:
The Host actually looks very intriguing to me. Plus, it's directed by the usually reliable Andrew Niccol.


Take a look at who wrote it and tell me if you're still optimistic.

Keep in mind that the "usually reliable" Bill Condon directed BREAKING DAWN.


You must be referring to Meyer because Niccol wrote the screenplay. I haven't read the book, but I think it's an intriguing if not completely original concept. It's true that Meyer is responsible for Twilight, but I think with a good writer/director like Niccol, he could take the cool concept and make a good movie out of it.

As for Condon, I haven't seen Gods and Monsters or Kinsey, but I HATED Dreamgirls and he's also the guy responsible for the Candyman sequel which I did see. So even if Gods and Monsters and Kinsey are good, he has a mixed at best resume IMO. And truth be told, I actually kind of enjoyed Breaking Dawn. It's easily the best out of all the Twilight movies. Admittedly, that's damning with faint praise, but it's not they aren't that bad.


Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:04 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr