Ok then, for me Rickey Gervais was the least enjoyable part in this movie. Mind you I went off him a bit when he completely bombed at the Diana concert(Take That could so still do another song)
But I wondered how you felt, so please do tell me, for you was it a Yay or a Nay?
My vote: Nay!
NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!
nay
I'd say it's a nay, but I'm not that impressed by him anyway. He doesn't make me laugh.
The problem here is that his scenes weren't brilliantly written. In fact, a lot of the scenes throughout the movie just tried to be "zany", as if that was enough to make it funny and entertaining, and for me a lot of them fell completely flat.
"Shakespeare" was another one. His scenes were truly dreadful -- both the script, and de Niro's clumsy performance.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
nah, he wasn't on screen that long, so it didn't matter to me. But when put in his element, Gervais is freakin' awesome. Loved him in "Night at the Museum".
"The whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll whisper "no."
I dont like the office
I dont like ghost town
I dont like his stand ups
I dont like his podcasts
Despite all this in the movie he did make me laugh! Up until he took the "you having a laff" line from Extras (the one thing he's done I like) and it just made me cringe... so its a NAY from me!
Saying that i still loved the movie! He wasnt in it enough to ruin a great film!
What the hell are you guys talking about?
I would hardly call a couple of cameos and one film (which not many Americans saw) 'ruining' otherwise good movies. The only reason he was in NotM was to return a favour to Ben Stiller, and this may have been a similar case with Robert DeNiro. Anyway, I've yet to see a comedian not play the same role in every comedic performance he's done.
Cheers
[deleted]
i'm saying this as a fan: NAY! i think he completely missed the tone and seemed out of place.
shareYay, times 100. Possibly the most entertaining bit in it.
I do see the point that one might find Gervais' comedy and style a bit "out of tune" in the setting, but the reason why I didn't find that a problem was that to me the whole movie was sort of "out of tune". If the movie had managed to grab me and put me in a mood that was even remotely like the one I experienced while reading the magnificent book, I might have been very distracted by his appearance (even though I'm a Gervais-fan).
And before the fanboy choir (who seem to think IMDb is exclusively an official page of worship for the movie) descend on me: No, I don't think it's a disastrous or even a bad movie. I just found it to be a very, very pale and forgettable shadow of the book.
I don't know where you're seeing a "fanboy choir," at least for this movie, but you'll indeed get some fierce partisans, which are not at all the same thing. Since I've been hanging around here for 21 months, I'm certainly one of them.
I'd be the last to say that those who prefer Neil Gaiman's book are somehow lacking in taste about, or unappreciative of, the movie's virtues. (You don't note, by the way, whether you're talking about the prose-only version or the graphic novel illustrated by Charles Vess. Not everything drawn by Vess even can be easily translated to the screen.)
Yet many in here, over those 21 months, who have liked the book in any form have not been at all shy about bashing those who prefer what was realized in the movie, as I do. I'm not saying you're doing that. Just that "fanboys," in any degree, aren't limited to filmgoers.
You wanted a film-viewing mood similar to the one you'd had when reading the book. I'm surprised, frankly, that you haven't realized — as any filmgoer past their teens typically does — how those experiences are not and cannot be at all the same. Your mind actively unfolds the implications and attributes of what's on the page. Your eyes and ears simply take in what others unfold on screen.
These are two very different media. Gaiman's text had many characters, asides, musings, and byplays of plot that couldn't be directly translated to motion pictures. Such conceptual elements couldn't stand by themselves. They had to be elaborated with visual, dialogue, and acting "hooks."
Gaiman admitted freely in the DVD's documentary that he didn't at all foresee how a single paragraph he tossed off about the lightning pirates would be turned into a breathtakingly intricate million-dollar flying-ship set being built at Pinewood Studios. Yet that physical elaboration was necessary if the implied live action, and CGI, were to be carried out successfully.
Similarly, the concluding convergence of forces on Yvaine, and the fierce battle in the witches' palace, were not portrayed in the book. They could be seen, though, as following from the logic of the characters that Gaiman created, recognizing that more muted menaces aren't easily translated into visuals.
Lamia "blows up real good" at the end of the film. She re-ages into frustrated obscurity, her plans unfulfilled, in the book. Yet only one path is easily dramatized. Sharpening her putative fangs made for a more sprightly tale on screen. It worked far better, to me, than the attempts of Peter Jackson to draw out the villains' nuances — hours of them! — in his Tolkien trilogy.
Gaiman, again, saw these differences, and welcomed what he described on video as "Stormhold Mark Two." If he hadn't, he wouldn't have been willing to be a co-producer, nor would he have brought Jane Goldman to the project as co-writer. (I doubt that Alan Moore grasps them. If he had, he wouldn't have angrily detached himself from the films made of his V for Vendetta, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and Watchmen.)
__
Yvaine: What do stars do best?
Captain: Well, certainly not the waltz!
So... you're saying that a movie and a book is like, two different things?! I don't get it...! Wow, that's like... wow. Ok, but if *that's* the case, I take back what I said. Everything. I actually loved the movie, then. And the fact that Gaiman endorsed the project too -- gee, what was I thinking? That fact reverses my opinion and automatically ensures that the movie was a successful interpretation of the novel, for everyone who might watch it. And obviously, Gaiman is completely unbiased and there's not a chance in hell that he would go easy on the first large scale Hollywood production of one of his books, with an allstar cast.
...
I hope I don't seem too hostile with the sarcasm, but you see: this is *precisely* why I used the term "fanboy choir". In retrospect, I probably should have kept that observation to myself, because here you are, on cue. And with the same old ammo. On every IMDb-page for every movie adaptation ever produced, you'll find that same standard reply being flung at anyone who might utter anything less than pure worship about the film: "They're two different things". (*gasp!*)
And while I do realize there are people out there who could benefit from having the difference between a book and a movie pointed out to them, it feels rather pointless and frankly a tad condescending to, say, a journalist with 20 years experience -- four of them working as a movie critic.
I did not review "Stardust" professionally though, and I don't feel the need now to spend time analyzing why I didn't get much of anything, emotionally, from the film. I simply didn't, which I pointed out as the reason why I, personally, was not distracted by Ricky Gervais' appearance. Which is what this thread is about. Why you choose to write a rather unsolicited 500 word reply to that comment, is frankly beyond me -- but I'd say it does a wonderful job of justifying my remarks on that topic.
I'm sure you'll write yet another reply, but I suspect I'm not going to feel inclined to spend any more time than this in defence for stating that I did get very little from the otherwise perfectly entertaining movie as opposed to the book (yes, the original book -- I haven't read the graphic novel). Or discussing Alan Moore, Tolkien, Jackson, etc., with that as a premise. I'll just point out that to me (personally) the "LOTR" trilogy and "Watchmen" are perfect examples of movie adaptations that seemed to capture the soul and the atmosphere (not to say the message) of the books/graphic novels in a remarkable way.
"Why you choose to write a rather unsolicited 500-word reply to that comment is frankly beyond me [...]"
Because you have no control over "soliciting" the comments you prefer in a forum like this, and that's as it ought to be.
And because "fanboy choir" is a term of gratuitous (though nonspecific) bashing, which doesn't at all belong here. It also glosses over the sizable distinction between those of us who can articulate reasons and evidence for our viewpoints, and those who cannot.
"[...] it feels rather pointless and frankly a tad condescending to, say, a journalist with 20 years experience - four of them working as a movie critic."
Well, we didn't know that, now, did we? One can't really be condescending when one doesn't know where someone else may be in his or her professional or writing journeys. We pompous asses don't know from what heights we may descend upon you {rueful smile}
I'm having to routinely point out the difference between written and cinematic forms — in many online fora — because so many of the products of our government schools think that novelizations are what routinely result from successful movies.
You may laugh, but I've encountered a few who thought the LotR cycle was written to cash in on Peter Jackson's film trilogy. (Proving that these cretins can't even read a date on a copyright page.)
As to what's behind your own claimed savvy: "[...] I did get very little from the otherwise perfectly entertaining movie as opposed to the book (yes, the original book — I haven't read the graphic novel)."
With such a comment, you show yourself as being far from sufficiently informed to talk about this at all, as to this work's specific differences in form. This is because you didn't bother to even Google that the graphic novel by Gaiman and Charles Vess preceded Gaiman's all-text edition — by several years. The visually rich and dense — almost to the point of half-storyboarding a future film — graphic novel WAS the "original book."
(Two months, yes, for such a response. I eventually get around to it.)
__
Yvaine: What do stars do best?
Captain: Well, certainly not the waltz!
Surely you jest about the LoTR books/movie order stevereed007???? Surely no-one on Earth thinks that??
You know NOTHING of the crunch, you've never even BEEN to the crunch!!
At first a nay, as I thought another actor could have acted circles in the same part (i.e. Paul Whitehouse or Harry Enfield), HOWEVER after seeing the movie a couple more times, I will say yay now.
P.S. Isn't it "aye", not "yay"?
As far as I know, "aye" is used in the "all in favour, raise your hands......the aye's have it" type scenario, and yay or nay is used as the OP said.
You know NOTHING of the crunch, you've never even BEEN to the crunch!!
Nay - I just fine him very unfunny, so I was delighted when the character was killed off.
"Losing your hair? Tiny cock? Buy a Porsche!" MTW
So it seems the vast majority of Nays come from women. Once more proving that, generally, women have poor taste in comedy.
shareI'm a bloke...love comedy and did like The Office however the US version has, I suspect, kept me entertained longer than the original version could have if it had gone on. I think Extras was the best thing he did but he just plays himself whenever I see him. He's quick witted but can't act so he should stay out of films.
NAY!