Things you wish you could say

[sourland]

So do you. Does Africa ring a bell?

Umm, maybe at the very beginning. The Princess on the other hand is perhaps more in line for bell ringing.

 

[sourland]

Was your grandaddy Māori?

Did they colonize Sotland?

 

[R2elk]

Oh shit…Do you have any proof?

Check the link in the earlier post.

New Zealand's dark secret:

 

[R2elk]

I do feel that when movies seriously change the plot they should change the title, though.

I think that when movies use the same title for entirely different movies (not sequels) that it is wrong.

Original - The Quick and the Dead

Not a sequel - The Quick and the Dead

 

[member 655102]

I think that when movies use the same title for entirely different movies (not sequels) that it is wrong.

Original - The Quick and the Dead

Not a sequel - The Quick and the Dead

True Grit too…

 

[Amer]

To each their own. I thought the books were poorly written and the characters unlikeable. I didn't finish the series. I do feel that when movies seriously change the plot they should change the title, though.

The series really matures the farther you go. It gets quite dark actually. Even though it is supposed to be a goofy fantasy it actually covers darker historical topics like slavery and abandoning children and torture. The movies weren’t so brave.
Also the second and third movies were just cringe. Hiccups real mom was so much cooler.
And Camicazi was my fav character at one point now I sorta like them equally. And Norbert the Nutjob, best villain of all time.

 

[Amer]

The books actually had a plan from the beginning and it all came together in the end. They seem goofy and unrelated but it is actually brilliantly executed. It’s all connected…

Meanwhile the movies are poorly written like: well that one did good, lets make a sequel.
Well, that did good lets make a third movie that has a weirdly similar plot to the sequel.

 

[Amer]

Anyway what made the characters unlikeable to you? Because in my opinion the book characters were so much better!

Spoiler: Reasons

Hiccup in the book was a nerd who wanted to please his father, hiccup in the movies was a sassy inventor.
Fishlegs in the books was the butt monkey of all of the other Hooligans but he actually was sarcastic and funny. Meanwhile Fishlegs in the movies was weird comic relief where the joke was how dumb and weird his lines were and had the nerdiness of book Hiccup but he spouts them in battle like video game stats? He doesn’t fit in, not in the sense of a misfit like Fishlegs in the books, but like they took a character from Ready Player One and inserted it in a fantasy movie. (I hated Ready Player One by they way.)
Camicazi was sassy, interesting, fierce, talkative and a little too full of herself. Astrid was a very generic love interest.(another great thing about the books is it doesn’t ship kids)
Toothless: I’ll take that. I like Toothless’ personality but I can see why it would come off as annoying. But it’s way cooler when dragons have a language and are intelligent than Toothless just being a large, powerful animal. (Although movie Toothless was sweet.)

 

[ShrekDawg]

You’re really invested in this

 

[Sally PB]

You have a UPS driver named Walt?

We did, where I worked in QC and shipping. We watched him pick up a packeage and drop it onto the cement floor from waist height. We collectively gave him an earful. The information went to the owner of the business and he talked with UPS.