Poll: Percy Jackson and the lightning thief: Why I?m disappointed

Freedomario

New member
Jan 22, 2010
334
0
0
First; i want to say there is spoilers in here, so if you are going to see the movie, i recommend not looking at this.
Second; this is my first forum thread, yay.
Third; i still like the movie, even though it disappoints me.

i was forced to read the book For english class about 5 years ago -I really liked it-, And after i saw that this was a movie i was awestruck that i can see this in a film so i didn't have to imagine the pictures myself and could finally get a representation on how it looked.
BUT
I went into the theater to see it, wanting these things:

1.The Trident in the Lake (or whatever) showing that he was the son of Poseidon
2.The Medusa Battle
3.The Lotus casino
4.The Battle against Cerberus (Three headed dog that supposedly guards the underworld)
5.The Battle against Ares (The God of war) {I think it was Ares...}

I got 2 and 3, Good enough, but from the beginning they knew he was the son of Poseidon, so no 1; They skip the humorous Cerberus battle; No bad-ass ares getting beat up and spitting gold blood; But i still enjoy it i didn't expect a movie to be EXACTLY like the movie.

Why cant all directors stick to the book like L.O.T.R. with 3 hour long movies anymore?
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
I also enjoyed this book a lot.

Still need to see the movie to get my own view of it. Hopefully it doesn't disappoint me as much.
 

Warrior Irme

New member
May 30, 2008
562
0
0
Freedomario said:
Why cant all directors stick to the book like L.O.T.R. with 3 hour long movies anymore?
I call this statement crap. I contend that one of the greatest endings ever was cut out and replaced with a terrible piece of feces because it was not the "happy ending" the common movie goer wanted.

I will say that if we must let them take a great piece of literature and turn it into a movie, that it should be as long as possible to accurately portray the piece.
 

Chancie

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,050
0
0
I saw it just yesterday and actually, I absolutely loved it. Luckily, I haven't read the books. :3 So I wouldn't know the difference.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
I actually met the author of the books a couple of years ago and got a free copy of the second part of the series as a result of it.

I haven't gone to see the movie yet, but my expectations are not high. I thought the book was okay, but I don't want something trying to become the next Harry Potter. That ship has sailed in my opinon.
 

Tireseas_v1legacy

Plop plop plop
Sep 28, 2009
2,419
0
0
Freedomario said:
Why cant all directors stick to the book like L.O.T.R. with 3 hour long movies anymore?
The questionable facts of your question aside, the main reason is this: the target audience. He's targeting the same audience as the Harry Potter series, which can barely stomach the length of those movies (made slightly easier by the willingness to break up the last book into two movies).

LotR was only successful because it was targeting a more mature fantasy audience, people who had grown up with the book (or books, depending on your take) and made it a part of the American Culture. They could stand sit through all of Star Wars and Godfather. The older members of that audience could sit through Ben-Hur, Tora Tora Tora, and 2001: A Space Oddyssy (when movies were so long had intermissions). Now if a movie stretches beyond two hours, they risk people walking out because it is too long.
 

Berethond

New member
Nov 8, 2008
6,474
0
0
Warrior Irme said:
Freedomario said:
Why cant all directors stick to the book like L.O.T.R. with 3 hour long movies anymore?
I call this statement crap. I contend that one of the greatest endings ever was cut out and replaced with a terrible piece of feces because it was not the "happy ending" the common movie goer wanted.

I will say that if we must let them take a great piece of literature and turn it into a movie, that it should be as long as possible to accurately portray the piece.
That's right!

They totally left out the destruction of the Shire.
*cries*
 

rokkolpo

New member
Aug 29, 2009
5,375
0
0
every movie sucks if u have read the book first.

it's a fact, just as games from movies suck.

it will always disappoint.
 

Meggiepants

Not a pigeon roost
Jan 19, 2010
2,536
0
0
Berethond said:
Warrior Irme said:
Freedomario said:
Why cant all directors stick to the book like L.O.T.R. with 3 hour long movies anymore?
I call this statement crap. I contend that one of the greatest endings ever was cut out and replaced with a terrible piece of feces because it was not the "happy ending" the common movie goer wanted.

I will say that if we must let them take a great piece of literature and turn it into a movie, that it should be as long as possible to accurately portray the piece.
That's right!

They totally left out the destruction of the Shire.
*cries*
Yes. I also wanted to see Merry and Pippin kick some ass. Also, I think it really took away some of the impact of the whole war not to have this scene. I thought this part of the book was especially poignant. Nowhere was safe from the destruction, not even the shire.
 

Berethond

New member
Nov 8, 2008
6,474
0
0
meganmeave said:
Berethond said:
Warrior Irme said:
Freedomario said:
Why cant all directors stick to the book like L.O.T.R. with 3 hour long movies anymore?
I call this statement crap. I contend that one of the greatest endings ever was cut out and replaced with a terrible piece of feces because it was not the "happy ending" the common movie goer wanted.

I will say that if we must let them take a great piece of literature and turn it into a movie, that it should be as long as possible to accurately portray the piece.
That's right!

They totally left out the destruction of the Shire.
*cries*
Yes. I also wanted to see Merry and Pippin kick some ass. Also, I think it really took away some of the impact of the whole war not to have this scene. I thought this part of the book was especially poignant. Nowhere was safe from the destruction, not even the shire.
It provided context, and really helped drive home some of Tolkein's points about war. One of my favorite parts of the books, definitely.