FtttG
Gheobhaidh mé bás ar an gcnoc seo.
User ID: 1175
I'm not sure if spiritual adaptations should count. Although I suppose Heart of Darkness is in the public domain.
Fight Club is worth reading once, but the film is definitely superior. Even the author thinks the film has a better ending.
It's more than twenty years since I read The Godfather, but the film was wise to drop one of the novel's most bizarre and out-of-place subplots.
I can't think of any adaptations that are very different to the source material but still good
The Shining? Most Hitchcock movies? The Shawshank Redemption departs from its source material in lots of subtle ways. LA Confidential retains the feel of its source novel, although the plot is dramatically simplified and the more extreme content toned down. Trainspotting is more like a collection of short stories set in the same universe compared to the film's streamlined plot. Minority Report had the exact opposite message to its source material. Children of Men is brilliant, but my understanding is that it has little in common with the source material beyond the basic premise of a fertility crisis and some of the characters' names. The director didn't even read the book his film was based on.
I don't know why you'd list a bunch of movies and TV shows you haven't seen to contradict the claim that movies are bad. How do you know they prove your point?
Certainly she was widely considered one of the most desirable women in the world at the tail end of the 2000s.
I found my bottom-quartile female classmates significantly more attractive just on the basis that they were younger and physically present in the room with me.
Well, that hardly seems like an apples-to-apples comparison. Presumably if you had a choice between having sex with one of your bottom-quartile female classmates and having sex with Megan Fox, you'd opt for the latter.
I'm curious who your friends considered a ten that you disagreed with.
Point taken, although I took @thejdizzler's point to be "Hollywood no longer knows how to make adaptations that are good movies" rather than "Hollywood no longer knows how to make faithful adaptations".
When were adaptations good in your experience?
Let's have a look at what Rotten Tomatoes considers the 300 best movies of all time:
- The Godfather (#1)
- Rear Window (#4)
- LA Confidential (#5)
- The Battle of Algiers (#9)
- Schindler's List (#10)
- Cool Hand Luke (#23)
- How to Train Your Dragon (#25)
- The Godfather pt. 2 (#28)
- Dr. Strangelove (#36)
- The Wages of Fear (#40)
- The Maltese Falcon (#41)
- Spotlight (#42)
- Grave of the Fireflies (#44)
- Psycho (#46)
- The Wizard of Oz (#49)
That's just from the top fifty: according to ChatGPT, 29% of the list are adaptations of one kind or another.
Probably true, now that you mention it.
Girl next door is a compliment, surely.
I think that has more to do with someone's interests than their appearance.
I assume @ArjinFerman was referring to how many state benefits the modal migrant can expect to receive in the UK vs. France.
I'm actually quite annoyed at your glib dismissal of my post and your insistence that these people cannot possibly mean what they say, especially when the literal Prime Minister of the UK has not ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry into the media's handling of the Arday case:
Calls are growing for an investigation into media reporting of the case. An open letter to Andy Burnham demanding a public inquiry “to ensure we never see a tragic death like Dr Arday’s again” has gathered more than 85,000 names.
The prime minister is said to be open to the idea and has not ruled out “Leveson 2” – the planned second part of the earlier inquiry into British press standards, which was cancelled in 2018.
Baby boomers and Gen Xers described a woman of average attractiveness (neither ugly nor hot) as "plain". Gen Z describes such women as "mid".
Does no equivalent word exist for Millennials?
How old are you? And how high is your libido?
It was bad enough to suggest that some sorts of outrage only come from people lying about their beliefs.
Why was it "bad enough"? What was "bad enough"? Shame on me for daring to suggest that a person who refuses to give a straight answer to a simple factual question might not be being entirely honest. Yes, I do in fact think that some people just go on the internet in front of their constituents and tell lies.
Why? What’s wrong with the first answer?
As mentioned by someone downthread, multiple things can be true at once. It can simultaneously be true that some people signing this petition think it's a sensible no-brainer of a proposal, while others have no expectation of anything like it passing into law, and are simply using it as a means to vent their frustration or signal their in-group. I know this, I'm not an idiot.
I really don't get what the complaint is here. On the one hand, you criticised me for accusing politicians of lying. At the same time, you're saying "the people who signed this petition don't really mean it, they're just pounding their chests, don't take them so seriously". In other words, you're criticising me for – taking what they say at face value and not assuming they're lying about their intentions. Which one is it? Should I call people liars, or not?
"It's bad when you assume that people who give evasive non-answers to simple factual questions aren't being entirely honest about what they believe. It's also bad when you don't assume that people aren't being sincere in their motivations for signing a petition." What do you want from me, exactly?
Ha ha, point and laugh at the Limeys.
Believe me when I tell you that I treat Limeys with far more charity and forbearance than the average Irishman does.
I'd argue that the integration of foreigners has actually gone better than in other states.
I don't know how anyone with even the most passing familiarity with the grooming gangs scandal can possibly believe this. If this is what "better" looks like, I'd hate to see the countries that have done worse than the UK, in your book.
I think the primary reason so many "asylum seekers" cross the channel is because they know the UK will provide them with generous state benefits more or less indefinitely, and that they will be able to commit crimes with impunity, only receiving the occasional slap on the wrist.
the statistics actually do show a worrying trend which the government is trying to keep for us (such a trend may exist, but this is not evidence)
by all rights your standards for Jews you are willing to hide in your basement when the Gestapo are on the prowl should be lower than your standards for peacetime houseguests.
I think this is a profoundly tasteless context in which to invoke the Holocaust. Are any of these so-called "asylum seekers" fleeing literal genocide? Most of the headlines I've seen boil down to "we can't send this man who raped a British woman back to his home country, because he'd be put to death for having committed the same crime over there (which was, in fact, the very thing that prompted him to flee in the first place)".
I once read an article criticising Naomi Klein, in which the author pointed out that, in 2007, Klein published a book called The Shock Doctrine, whose central thesis was a strategy called "disaster capitalism", in which political actors exploit the chaos of natural disasters, wars, and other crises to push through unpopular policies such as deregulation and privatization. In her subsequent book, This Changes Everything, Klein argued that the climate crisis cannot be addressed in the current era of neoliberalism, and hence that the only solution is to instate Full Communism.
Huh. Political actors exploit the chaos caused by natural disasters to implement unpopular economic policies, you say?
The golden rule has no impossible prerequisites.
It does, though. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But that requires me to imagine myself in circumstances that would never and can never befall me (it's impossible for me to have been born with one leg, or been born a woman, or been born a different ethnicity), just as the veil of ignorance does.
It's a gotcha question. Either:
a) they believed him (meaning they're stupid and gullible, hence unqualified to make hiring decisions), or
b) they didn't believe him, but hired him anyway (meaning they knowingly hired a con artist).
- Prev
- Next

I did something similar recently, looking at all the notches on my bedpost and sorting them by ethnicity, body shape and breast size.
Unsurprisingly, slim Asian women with small breasts predominated.
More options
Context Copy link