DS Forums

 
 

Bridget Jones Baby


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-09-2016, 09:00
Crazyeyeskiller
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,732

Whilst watching a report about the premiere of this last night only one thought struck me.....why?

The books were good, the films were meh, but for some reason everyone now talks about them as if they are on a par with The Godfather trilogy or Star Wars or something.

Stuff like this should just be made for TV - absolutely no need for there to be movies made about them - it's all such a flimsy premise just rinsed to the nth degree.
Crazyeyeskiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-09-2016, 09:02
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
Whilst watching a report about the premiere of this last night only one thought struck me.....why?

The books were good, the films were meh, but for some reason everyone now talks about them as if they are on a par with The Godfather trilogy or Star Wars or something.

Stuff like this should just be made for TV - absolutely no need for there to be movies made about them - it's all such a flimsy premise just rinsed to the nth degree.
One word . . .

$$$$$$$
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 09:28
Inkblot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,303
Whilst watching a report about the premiere of this last night only one thought struck me.....why?

The books were good, the films were meh, but for some reason everyone now talks about them as if they are on a par with The Godfather trilogy or Star Wars or something.
No one talks about them like that. They were well-made, lighthearted films that appealed to a wider audience than most modern comedies. In particular they appealed to women who wanted a good laugh and wanted to see a lead character who looked and behaved a bit like a real woman, not a male fantasy of what a real woman should look like. There will always be a market for that kind of film.
Inkblot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 09:43
Fairyprincess0
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,696
The Bridget jones films are symbolic of the ghetto that the whole rom-com genre is down.

I half-blame richard Curtis for being responsible for the souless formula, that is modern rom-com.

Where are the 'high-concept' rom-coms? (while you were sleeping, 50 first dates, ghost, or splash.)

Where are the 'more com then rom, rom-coms? (Something about mary, wedding singer.)

Of the classy, interspective of realtionship rom-coms? (When harry met sally, anne hall, affair to remember.)

All we have is formulaic trash. And its partially the fault of richard Curtis and stuff like Bridget jones....
Fairyprincess0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 09:44
Little Star
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 648
The one thing that strikes me about the film, is that we've already been told that a large part of the storyline revolves around who is the father of Bridget's baby.

Now anyone who has read Mad about the Boy, which focuses on Bridget's life in her 50s will know that
Spoiler


So unless they completely forget that that whole book ever happened (and believe me I would like to myself) then most of us already know the answer to the main question. Unless they contradict it in the film by leaving the answer open ended...

To make matters more complicated, the newspaper columns written by Fielding, which originally detailed the birth of Bridget's baby, concluded with Daniel Cleaver being the father of Bridget's baby! So clearly they must have existed in another universe...

There are a number of other contradictions that the Mad About the Boy book throws up
Spoiler


Before anyone points out the obvious, I do realise that this is a comedy, not meant to be taken to seriously and that dramatic license often amends books when they are adapted for the big screen. However, regardless of this, the whole premise of Bridget Jones is that she is meant to be a character the audience relates to and cares about. The fact that her life story has been changed and contradicted several times is a bit much for anyone who invested in the books and the newspaper columns...
Little Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 09:46
PJ68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,807
The one thing that strikes me about the film, is that we've already been told that a large part of the storyline revolves around who is the father of Bridget's baby.

Now anyone who has read Mad about the Boy, which focuses on Bridget's life in her 50s will know that
Spoiler


So unless they completely forget that that whole book ever happened (and believe me I would like to myself) then most of us already know the answer to the main question. Unless they contradict it in the film by leaving the answer open ended...

To make things more complicated, the newspaper columns written by Fielding, which originally detailed the birth of Bridget's baby, concluded with Daniel Cleaver being the father of Bridget's baby! So clearly they must have existed in another universe...

There are a number of other contradictions that the Mad About the Boy book brings up
Spoiler


Before anyone points out the obvious, I do realise that this is a comedy, not meant to be taken to seriously and that dramatic license often amends books when they are adapted for the big screen. However, regardless of this, the whole premise of Bridget Jones is that she is meant to be a character the audience relates to and cares about. The fact that her life story has been changed and contradicted several times is a bit much for anyone who invested in the books and the newspaper columns...
it's not based on the third book...
PJ68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 09:48
PJ68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,807
Whilst watching a report about the premiere of this last night only one thought struck me.....why?

The books were good, the films were meh, but for some reason everyone now talks about them as if they are on a par with The Godfather trilogy or Star Wars or something.

Stuff like this should just be made for TV - absolutely no need for there to be movies made about them - it's all such a flimsy premise just rinsed to the nth degree.
that's quite a sexist thing to say. actually its a VERY sexist thing to say. why shouldn't it be a movie??

the reviews all seem to be very positive, and quite a few say its good there's a film which focuses on women's role at work as they get older. there are probably a lot of women in the same boat who want to see something they can relate too.

it's why the first film and the books were such massive hits.
PJ68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 09:57
Little Star
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 648
it's not based on the third book...
I know it's not based on the book! The third book was written about a timeframe when Bridget was in her 50's. As I've said above.

The timeframe in this film is ten years earlier. So clearly the events could not be based on that book....

The points I was making are:

1. The children's parentage is established without question in the book focussing on Bridget's life ten years on.
2. The film in it's own timeframe contradicts several facts about Bridget's past which are clearly referred to in the book, focussing on her later life. The book having already contradicted facts about Bridget and her child's parentage, established in the earlier newspaper columns.
Little Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 10:13
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
I know it's not based on the book! The third book was written about a timeframe when Bridget was in her 50's. As I've said above.

The timeframe in this film is ten years earlier. So clearly the events could not be based on that book....

The points I was making are:

1. The children's parentage is established without question in the book focussing on Bridget's life ten years on.
2. The film in it's own timeframe contradicts several facts about Bridget's past which are clearly referred to in the book, focussing on her later life. The book having already contradicted facts about Bridget and her child's parentage, established in the earlier newspaper columns.
You understand that people make films that completely contradict what exists in books all the time? If the film wants to change the characters future it can do.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 10:52
Little Star
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 648
You understand that people make films that completely contradict what exists in books all the time? If the film wants to change the characters future it can do.
Yes, of course I know that. Which is why I've explicitly referred to that fact in my first post.... See the part commencing 'Before anyone points out the obvious......................'

I am well aware that they CAN do that and that it is often done with book adaptions. The point of my post was that Bridget's story has now been changed/retconned several times between the book, the newspaper columns and this film. Which I personally (and I am not speaking for anyone else) find to be a bit much for a character the audience is meant to care about/ identify with.

That is my personal opinion and not a view on whether or not filmmakers CAN change a storyline from the original book.
Little Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 11:32
blueisthecolour
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
Yes, of course I know that. Which is why I've explicitly referred to that fact in my first post.... See the part commencing 'Before anyone points out the obvious......................'

I am well aware that they CAN do that and that it is often done with book adaptions. The point of my post was that Bridget's story has now been changed/retconned several times between the book, the newspaper columns and this film. Which I personally (and I am not speaking for anyone else) find to be a bit much for a character the audience is meant to care about/ identify with.

That is my personal opinion and not a view on whether or not filmmakers CAN change a storyline from the original book.
Ok, apologies for not reading that bit.

I don't want to generalize too much - but I would be very surprised if any more than 1-2% of people that have watched the BJD films have ever read any of the source material or follow on novels. So for them the change isn't going to be an issue. It's not like Harry Potter, Game of Thrones or other 'cult' franchises where there are a lot of fans who consume a lot of non-movie material.
blueisthecolour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 15:21
Sara_Peplow
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,464
Saw the trailers assuming they need to do a dna test or at least compare the baby's blood type to work out who the father is.
Sara_Peplow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2016, 16:17
Heavenly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 30,890
A selection of reviews.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/201...ew-of-reviews/
Heavenly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 12:37
Nesta Robbins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,846
Not sure if there's many Bridget Jones' fans left that haven't seen this, but saw this just as a night out - hadn't read any reviews and with very little expectation and was surprised how funny it was. Loved it and if you just fancy something lighthearted and a belly laugh or two can recommend!
Nesta Robbins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 13:46
intoxication
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,283
Not sure if there's many Bridget Jones' fans left that haven't seen this, but saw this just as a night out - hadn't read any reviews and with very little expectation and was surprised how funny it was. Loved it and if you just fancy something lighthearted and a belly laugh or two can recommend!
I was pleased that she still looked like Bridget (albeit slimmer) as when she first had her surgery Renee looked like a completely different person altogether
intoxication is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 13:57
TheAngryGerman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 415
Greatly enjoyed the film. Had a good time.
TheAngryGerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 14:13
little-monster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 30,156
I liked it. It was more grounded than the second film, which went very OTT in many ways.

I loved the way it dealt with themes such as age and having a baby in your 40's. I felt this film actually had something to say. I would happily welcome one more film.
little-monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2016, 23:21
sarahj1986
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 8,093
I quite liked the film, not as good as the first but much better than the second.
sarahj1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:02.