So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[Ticklishchap]

Today I received two letters that got me annoyed. Both came from the utility companies, one from our landline supplier the other from our electricity company. They both begin: "Hello Robert," Hello Robert? What happened to the courtesy of: Dear Mr. Taylor? It seems more and more prevalent and not just in the mail.

It doesn't just tick me off as is the thread title, there's a much stronger way of describing my feelings towards those who try to come over all sweet and friendly, but it's not printable, I'm sure you are ahead of me though.

I agree. I loathe this false informality. I would add to it that I do not want to be on first name terms with my lawyer, doctor, accountant, dentist, or any other professional with whom I have a friendly but formal relationship rather than an actual friendship.

 

[Who?]

If you have a pit full fo hungry crocodiles and you put a sign in front of it that says "Hey! Just a reminder that we share the planet with many carnivorous species, all of whom we celebrate as a part of the earth's natural diversity, including crocodiles, a number of whom inhabit the bottom of this excavation. We ask you kindly to respect their space," you will have far more guests becoming crocdile supper than if you just put up a sign that says DANGER! CROCODILE PIT. I dunno, maybe that's the whole idea.

“Crocodiles gotta eat …… same as worms.”

 

[Who?]

I find the way Hollywood has to change everything in a book, in order to show their “creativity” when they make a movie from it to be extremely annoying. Then they have the nerve to say that the movie is “based on” the book.

There have been authors who have asked to have their name removed from a Hollywood “adaptation” of their work.

The book is almost always better, and the movie is usually much shallower.

 

[tonyb]

I find the way Hollywood has to change everything in a book, in order to show their “creativity” when they make a movie from it to be extremely annoying. Then they have the nerve to say that the movie is “based on” the book.

There have been authors who have asked to have their name removed from a Hollywood “adaptation” of their work.

The book is almost always better, and the movie is usually much shallower.

I always get a chuckle out of the claims that a story is “inspired”’ by actual events.

My adolescent driveway basketball moves were inspired by Oscar Robertson.

 

[Ticklishchap]

I find the way Hollywood has to change everything in a book, in order to show their “creativity” when they make a movie from it to be extremely annoying. Then they have the nerve to say that the movie is “based on” the book.

There have been authors who have asked to have their name removed from a Hollywood “adaptation” of their work.

The book is almost always better, and the movie is usually much shallower.

I remember as a schoolboy seeing an old (1930s?) Hollywood adaptation of Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’. It was described in impeccable but anachronistic American English as ‘Based on the Book by Mrs Percy B. Shelley’.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Anyone who reads a historical novel or goes to a historical play or a historical movie expecting history must inevitably be frustrated. Authors and playwrights and screenwriters aren't historians -- and they're not writing for an audience that's been dead for a hundred years. They're creators of fiction, purveyors of fantasies, and they're writing for the audience that's getting ready to go complain to the manager that we won't stop mumbling "THAT'S NOT the way it happened."

Realizing that and always keeping it in mind saves a great deal of frustration all around.

I remember attending a screening of "Captain America" and hearing a bulky pedant in front of me criticizing the accuracy of the military uniforms., because of course, comic book fantasy stories must be held to a particularly rigid standard of stitch-counting.

 

[Who?]

I guess the days of “If you are going to do it ….. do it right.” are long dead.

Unless, of course, one is a pedant.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's just that it's so much easier to realize that none of this "historical" material is being produced for me. I'm not the audience they're aiming for, and I never, ever will be.

There comes a time in all of our lives, regardless of what our own particular quirky pop-culture obsessions might be, when we cease to be the audience. It's just part of the natural progression of age and life, and realizing that, the energy I don't waste shaking my fist at the sky is energy I can devote to the things that I do enjoy. To put it succinctly -- they got something wrong in a movie I know more about than they do. Who cares?

 

[GHT]

I remember attending a screening of "Captain America" and hearing a bulky pedant in front of me criticizing the accuracy of the military uniforms., because of course, comic book fantasy stories must be held to a particularly rigid standard of stitch-counting.

Good point Lizzie, Ian Fleming was deeply concerned that his popular spy novels would not be used to their fullest extent and become a B movie, that was before the release of Dr No in 1962. The Bond creator longed for a big name actor to lead his series to success and was deeply disgruntled when Sean Connery was cast. Fleming even resorted to the 'F' profanity. Fleming revealed his fury ahead of the first 007 film, accusing the production company of trying "f*** up my work."
https://www.express.co.uk/entertain...daniel-craig-ian-fleming-writer-snub-film-spt

​

 

[tonyb]

It's just that it's so much easier to realize that none of this "historical" material is being produced for me. I'm not the audience they're aiming for, and I never, ever will be.

There comes a time in all of our lives, regardless of what our own particular quirky pop-culture obsessions might be, when we cease to be the audience. It's just part of the natural progression of age and life, and realizing that, the energy I don't waste shaking my fist at the sky is energy I can devote to the things that I do enjoy. To put it succinctly -- they got something wrong in a movie I know more about than they do. Who cares?

That’s about the size of it, sister. We create the media, and the media create us.

 

[Tiki Tom]

where I live, to use anything more formal than a first name is to identify yourself as an elitist snob of the worst sort. If you don’t know their first name, just say brother or sister or uncle or auntie. Very simple.

 

[Edward]

I find the way Hollywood has to change everything in a book, in order to show their “creativity” when they make a movie from it to be extremely annoying. Then they have the nerve to say that the movie is “based on” the book.

There have been authors who have asked to have their name removed from a Hollywood “adaptation” of their work.

The book is almost always better, and the movie is usually much shallower.

I don't mind adaptation where that is necessary to the form. Although we live in an era in which multi-media formatting is seen as inherently desirable, the reality is that not every book will work as a faithful screen-adaptation any more than every film could be translated into a decent book. (There's a thing we rarely see now: the "book of them film". I remember well enough in the eighties you would still see novelisations of popular films on regular sale. The concept largely died out when home video reached the point where it was affordable and accessible to own your own copy of the film instead. It does, though, live on in a limited form in that original films based on comic book properties will often see a 'graphic novel' tie-in version and/or spin offs. However, I digress....)

I don't mind some truncation of plots, or simplifications or whatever if needed for the form. Jaws radically cut down on several sub-plots when translated to screen, introduced others (the USS Indianapolis link in particular), and altered the end to the shark (in the book, the shark dies slowly from wounds already inflicted). Both work, just different animals. Trainspotting was another - the book, film, and stage show are all slightly different animals, each playing to their own formats. It is true, however, that for every plot change in a film which improves on the original (Watchmen is an excellent case in point: same basic plot point, but different, better, Maguffin), there are a few more that make a hash of it. I'll never forget a truly dreadful version of Wuthering Heights that cut out the entire second half of the book by having Hindley Earnshaw succeed in murdering Heathcliff.

In the era of cinema-level-budget TV/streaming, though, now that TV is no longer second fiddle to cinema, I think there's a lot to be said for using that format instead. Why cram it all into one or two films, when you can cover the plot in a required depth in the context of a series of a dozen parts of an hour or more each? (Budget allowing, of course.) Some things work well in a shorter piece, others better long-form.

I always get a chuckle out of the claims that a story is “inspired”’ by actual events.

My adolescent driveway basketball moves were inspired by Oscar Robertson.

My favourite is probably The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's claim to be based on a true story. Which it is: Ed Gein. Of course, 'based on a true story' is a very wide field, from the most accurate of biography, to 'vaguely inspired by'. I do enjoy the playfulness to be had with the elasticity of the concept, though.

I remember as a schoolboy seeing an old (1930s?) Hollywood adaptation of Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’. It was described in impeccable but anachronistic American English as ‘Based on the Book by Mrs Percy B. Shelley’.

Heaven help us all if the little lady was allowed to step out of the shadow of her husband. after all!

 

[Trenchfriend]

I need a little help from my friends:

Bee Gees - You should be dancing

"She's juicy and she's trouble..."

What does "she's trouble" mean?? Turbulent or so??

 

[Edward]

I can't be doing with performative politeness. Real politeness online - yes please, not enough of that. What I absolutely despise, though, is the tyranny of being positive about everything. You know, those people who can't abide anyone saying "I don't like this television show" because "Other people like it, you're just being negative, you don't have to watch it", when what they really mean is "I like it and I don't want to hear any dissenting opinions." It's a close cousin of screaming about "freedom of speech" when what they really mean is "I want to say what I like unchallenged."

 

[KILO NOVEMBER]

I need a little help from my friends:

Bee Gees - You should be dancing

"She's juicy and she's trouble..."

What does "she's trouble" mean?? Turbulent or so??

Once again you astound me with your notion of "trivial, but it really ticks you off". Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question. I can't say how "turbulent" translates into German, but "trouble" in this case might mean a combination of:
- she will toy with your emotions by having multiple romantic involvements simultaneously
- she will cause you to spend your money recklessly
- she will draw you into heated, dramatic arguments
- she will borrow your car and drive it until it runs out of fuel and abandon it at a distant point
...

I hope that helps.

 

[EngProf]

Once again you astound me with your notion of "trivial, but it really ticks you off". Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your question. I can't say how "turbulent" translates into German, but "trouble" in this case might mean a combination of:
- she will toy with your emotions by having multiple romantic involvements simultaneously
- she will cause you to spend your money recklessly
- she will draw you into heated, dramatic arguments
- she will borrow your car and drive it until it runs out of fuel and abandon it at a distant point
...

I hope that helps.

And the #1 "trouble" is that she may get pregnant - whether you want that or not...

 

[Tiki Tom]

“She’s trouble” means “I will do stupid things that, normally (in my right mind), I wouldn’t do.”

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
I have been a fool for lesser things.

 

[Ticklishchap]

where I live, to use anything more formal than a first name is to identify yourself as an elitist snob of the worst sort. If you don’t know their first name, just say brother or sister or uncle or auntie. Very simple.

Are you describing an aspect of native Hawaiian culture here? I have found with the generality of Americans that they are often fairly formal and polite, contrary to the stereotype, and certainly more so than most white ‘Brits’ today (British people of Black or Asian heritage often have an old-fashioned, traditionally British politeness, as do more recent immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe).

I am not at all against informality if it is culturally embedded. It is false informality that I dislike: the pretence of friendship or intimacy in relationships that are amicable but purely professional and transactional. This is not actually “friendly” at all. It is intrusive and crosses boundaries.

I also write in the context of Britain, where there has been a tradition of professional politeness, but it has been eroded and is considered “elitist” or something now.

Let me give one quick example. When I was a pre-school boy (back in the Punic Wars), my parents employed a cleaner, Mrs Fenby. She was always “Mrs Fenby” and she addressed my parents as Mr and Mrs - as well. I don’t think that any of them even knew each others’ forenames. And guess what? It was a very good, professional relationship and very egalitarian in that everyone respected each other. There was no sentimental pretence of “friendship” - she had the same status as the doctor or the accountant.

In modern Britain, you are expected to be on first name terms not only with cleaning staff, but almost all professionals. It is a sign IMHO of a generalised loss of status - “levelling down” rather than “levelling up”.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Man, I'm watching youtube song reaction videos too much, actually. I need a brake, before my eyes get quadratic...