themostepotente: (G/E)
Keeper of the Superfluous Es! ([personal profile] themostepotente) wrote2005-01-11 06:06 pm

Pointless Musings

Yeah, just like the title suggests. And besides, there are certain people that count on me for their day's entertainment :P

1.) Phantom of the Opera: I've noticed a good portion of my friendslist has been wibbling over the movie. People, I sure as fuck hope you know that PotO has been around a long time, and like this is NOT a new phenom :P I'm sorry, but I can't get excited over something that's missing two key elements; Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman. 'Nuff said.

2.) The asshats across the street whose Christmas tree is still visible from the window: Take the fucker down, you lazy sons o' bitches. It's bad enough it's stilll up, but to plug the sucker in?

3.) Kittens that prefer empty toilet paper rolls over 'real' toys: I could make a real killing marketing this :P

4.) On hating the snow and cold: I live in Michigan and I H-A-T-E both. I'm up there in smarts with the dumbshit 'I'm going to leave the Christmas decorations up all year' neighbors :P

5.) On laughing at the idjits smoking out in the freezing cold: *dons nametag* Hello! I'm now one of those fucking idjits! Ah, irony.

More later,

--P

[identity profile] froda-baggins.livejournal.com 2005-01-11 03:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I'll accept five years :-)

And if someone sees the movie and through it discovers the wonder of the stage show? Is there something wrong with that?

OMG woman, take it back!

Nevah.

The movie to me is like the fucking cliffnotes of the musical.

It's actually not. You should give it a chance. There are only about...four major changes made, two are additions, one moves an event from one part to another, and only one is actually an omission, and only a partial one at that.

I mean, heavy cutting is, imo, the biggest fear when translating a stage show to film, but there really wasn't any heavy cutting for Phantom.

And it was filmed beautifully.

[identity profile] themostepotente.livejournal.com 2005-01-11 03:43 pm (UTC)(link)
And it was filmed beautifully.

So was Peter Jackson's interpretation of Lord of the Rings.

It still wasn't Tolkien.

Which reminds me, I forgot to bitch about the fucktard that doesn't know the Ages of Middle Earth from a hole in the ground :P

[identity profile] froda-baggins.livejournal.com 2005-01-11 03:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Well technically the film version of Phantom is still Lloyd Webber, because he produced it. XD

And I don't think I'm going to get into an argument about LotR, except to say you're right, it's not Tolkien, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have artistic merit, and isn't a valid interpretation of Tolkien. No one ever claimed it actually was Tolkien.

[identity profile] themostepotente.livejournal.com 2005-01-11 03:49 pm (UTC)(link)
It just ain't my cuppa, darlin -- what can I say?

Boy, you and [livejournal.com profile] titti debate with the best of 'em.

[identity profile] froda-baggins.livejournal.com 2005-01-11 03:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Well your loss.

Haha! I'm very flattered. I've spent long hours figuring all this stuff out. XD