Ripoff! - Foxfire (1996) Discussion

[–] barbarellacult 20 years ago

Thank you! Sorry, but this movie deserves to be trashed. What a way to spit on an excellent novel. No offense to the actors. They did a good job for the most part. There is so much that the movie left out. Plus, I may be remembering wrong (credit that to getting older :P), but weren't the girls in this book younger? I could have sworn they were 12/15.

reply

[–] h6bekiisu 20 years ago

Who wrote the novel?

reply

[–] tvtag23 20 years ago

Joyce Carol Oates

reply

[–] h6bekiisu 20 years ago

Thank you.I loved the movie so I'm definetly going to buy the novel too.

reply

[–] kurtsandlercobain 18 years ago

Get over it its a movie and i have never read the novel but the movie was pretty good when i was a teenager a female by the way and didn't know any better if you had any sense you'd know that most movies ruin novels so you did it to your self. Compareing a book written in the 50s to a movie released in the 90s Angelina and "Goldie" rocked

reply

[–] Ciaron212 17 years ago

The book wasn't written in the 1950s, it was written in the 1990s.

reply

[–] Klonner 16 years ago

yeah, this movie was great. I wouldn't have changed a thing about it. Would NEVER read the novel knowing it's nothing like the movie now. Why bother. Could never pick better actreses that had a closer bond. Hey, Angelina even dated Goldie, not in the movie, for a short time afterwards. haha

reply

[–] RhondaWeasley 16 years ago

I read the book and love the book, but I thought the movie was a good departure from the book while still keeping a lot of the heart of it in place. It felt more "inspired by" the novel then a badly butchered attempt to directly adapt the novel (see -- well all the Harry Potter movies after Prisoner of Azkaban). I personally think a well ordered, but loosely "inspired by" story is way better than any buttchered attempt to directly adapt out there (see --- "Queen of the Damned"). The book and the movie are two different stories honestly, but one is clearly based on the other because...

-There's a core friendship between Maddy and Legs that drives the story.

-the girl gang forms around a revenge against oppressive adults

-The "attack" on Buttinger, while different in one form from the other, has the same point.

-Certain events (Legs time in jail, the tattoo scene, the car chase) still exsist and exsist tottally because of the book that procceeded it - because it is in fact "based on" and/or "inspired by" the book of the same name, even though the reason and timeline of the events are different.

-All the primary characters were born from the book.

Who knows how many books scene were taken out/changed in the process of the movie's creation. But changing the time and place of the story gave birth to need for them to go. I personally loved the movie and ate up the book. I think because I already loved the movie as is, it was easier for me to accept the book - especially since it was good too.

It's always a crapshoot going from one format (novel) to another (film) and most aren't going to get a full treatment except in a TV mini-series and even then you lose something. I've both read and seen "The Neverending Story" - the book is beautiful, the first movie rocks (despite losing HALF the novel) and the follow up movies suck. I've both read and seen Ella Enchanted (saw the movie first) and the book rocked while the terrible "inspired by" adaptation was HORRID. If I hadn't been told the book was actually good the movie certainly wouldn't have made me want to read the book. Foxfire did the opposite. With Foxfire even though it was only very loosely adapted from the book (with many loses from the book in the retelling), a good story was told in BOTH cases with Foxfire. I was happy to have enjoyed both.

Rhonda Weasley
http://www.myspace.com/silentbard

reply

[–] shellbell200301 20 years ago

Before you go giving yourself a heart attack, why don't you sit back and think about what the difference is between a novel and a movie.. ((plays theme song to jepordy)) OH YEAH.. THATS RIGHT.. ONE IS A NOVEL AND ONE IS A MOVIE.

The movie was fantastic. Just because it doesn't follow the book line for line doesn't mean it's not a good movie.

Honestly, I wouldn't want to watch a movie about five teenagers living in 1950's new york city where people get revenge by "spray painting rude remarks" on a pedophiles car.

They updated the year because it IS A MOVIE. They wanted to reach their target audience so they based in the 90's... so what?

If you enjoy the book and hate the movie.. THEN DON'T WATCH THE MOVIE. Read the damn book.

I think that the acting in this movie was great and this movie was what made me a huge fan of Angelina Jolie's. I also got into the Final Fantasy (part 10 and 10/2) video games because I found out that Hedy Burress was doing the voice of Yuna. She's a great voice actress.

All in all, if you don't like the movie... DON'T WATCH IT..

"I must break you" -Ivan Drago

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 20 years ago

WHY DONT THEY JUST *beep* CHANGE THE DAMN TITLE OF THE MOVIE IF ITS NOT GOING TO BE BASED ON THE *beep* NOVEL!? DAMMIT! When you read something.. you expect the movie to follow the story and keep the true spirit of the novel alive! BUT NO NO! You *beep* hollywood ass kissers have no respect for the novel itself that you wanted/liked it MODIFIED! MODIFIED into something so *beep* gay! The movie just ruined the book!! Joan Carol Oates deserves SO much better than that!

-Tan

reply

[–] mynxuk 19 years ago

hey!! if you hadnt read the book, would you like the movie? just out of curiosity...;)

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

Mmm... if I hadn't read the book I don't know if I still would like the movie. I guess my opinion is biased.

-Tan

reply

[–] kleopatra_60 18 years ago

ya really biased just dont think of them being even the same story because they are really not and in my opinion they did an amazing job on the movie I like the book but if they based a movie in the fifties and had all the same stuff as in the book it wouldnt have had even the following that it did and for your information they did change the name the book is called foxfire confessions of a girl gang, the movie is called just plain foxfire so maybe you need to think about that for a while...... I watched the movie before I read the book and in my opinion I like the movie better even though it is a great novel I am glad they changed the year to fit a 1996 audience I think it was smart of them and I think people should stop bashing movies because they were made for peoples intertainment not to be picked at underneath a microscope like everyone seems to do just sit back and enjoy and do me a favor and stop being such an ass.......
kleo

~"dead by sixteen or together in a scene but together for f...... ever"~
~"united against life as we know it"~
GINGER SNAPS

reply

[–] snikki2 19 years ago

I just recently read the book and I had seen the movie quite a few years ago. I did like the movie a lot without reading the book, and I hated the book.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

From http://www.nyctophilia.net/foxfire/moviediff.html

it states:

Differences between the book and movie

--The movie is set in the 90s and is about white-collar girls; the book is set in the 50s and is about blue-collar girls. This really has an effect on the meaning of the movie because in the book this is so relevant to why they formed the gang in the first place. In the book it was their mutual distrust of adults and particularly men--due to their past experiences--that united them. In the movie, it was just one event of revenge on an abusive male that united them, and their bond in the movie is much less strong than in the book.

--The movie takes place in Portland, Oregon, while the book takes place in Hammond, New York.

--In the movie, Legs is a brunette who is just passing through town when she meets up with the other characters. In the book, Legs is a blonde who has been friends with the others since childhood. (The hair color is more important than it would seem)

--In the movie, the name FOXFIRE is never mentioned. There is a scene in which "FOXFIRE BURNS & BURNS" is spray painted on a wall, but they never declare a name for themselves or say that they're a gang. In the book the girls' identity as FOXFIRE is vitally important to them; it's who they are.

--The movie takes place over a few weeks or so (it's hard to tell), but the book spans more than three years.

--There's no character named Lana in the movie; in the book there is. It's easy to see why they took her out, though, because Lana is not very important to the story, despite the fact that she's one of the founding members.

--In the book the FOXFIRE sisters are violently forbidden from dating guys, whereas in the movie it's perfectly acceptable.

--In the movie, Goldie is a mostly-quiet but rebellious girl--and when she says something, it's usually mean; in the book Goldie is a tough, loud, angry girl who no one likes to mess with.

--In the movie, Violet is promiscuous; in the book she's just really beautiful with lots of guys after her.

--There are many plot differences. Nearly every event in the book is left out in the movie; those that are not are vastly different so as to be almost unrecognizable. For instance, the scene with Mr. Buttinger comes from an event in the book, but while in the movie they beat him up, in the book they paint insulting things on his car so that he drives home without knowing why everyone is staring at him. The movie's scene in which they break into the school to get Maddy's portfolio does not happen in the book at all, and neither did Goldie's drug problem. In the movie there is no description of Legs' time in jail, while in the book all of Part 3 is devoted to it. Basically, the movie has fewer important events than the book: the movie has five (Mr. Buttinger, breaking into the school, the tattooing, the car chase, and the kidnapping), while the book has so many they are uncountable. Of course, you could never fit the entire book into a movie anyway, but many of the important plot twists are left out of the movie. The ending is also very different.

-Tan

reply

[–] deaddest 19 years ago

First, it IS based on the book, it's just a loose adaption. A lot of movies based on books are loose adaptions. Just look at Willy Wonka, with Gene Wilder. Most of that movie is VASTLY different that the book, including then entire scene with how Veruca dies. There are NO geese in the book. There are NO squirrels in the movie. How about faerie tales - they are adapted constantly. Did you get this upset when drew barrymore saved herself in "Everafter" instead of waiting for the prince with her shoe?

Of course, there are also movies based on true events... In "A Beautiful Mind", John Nash is painted as a geeky mathmatician who is very loveable, dispite the fact that he has delusions - while in real life John Nash was an outcast who tourtured animals & his sister, was in turn tourtured by boys at his schools {whom would fool him into thinking they were an item - homosexual tendencies no where in the film} and who slept with his students {both male and female} behind his wife, Elinor's back - and she, who i might ass, in the movie is painted as a slightly outspoken woman while in real life was incredibly shy, and easily the stereotypical victim type.

It's simply an adaption, "based on", not a word for word thing.Yes, you love the book and hate the movie, based purely on the differences, we get it, we know they exsist. Sometimes it's best, when watching a movie, to try to forget anything you think you know about it and say "It's just a movie."

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

How can it be 'based on' when its ENTIRELY different?

-Tan

reply

[–] deaddest 19 years ago

How do you STILL not understand the concept of "based on"???!!!???
Based on mean it took the ideas from something, but it doesn't mean it IS that thing. It means it's an adaptation. It is not a literal word for word of something, but you've proven that it's taken it's ideas from the book. It has been modernized, AND it has been adapted for a smaller time period. Generally, however, it is BASED ON the book. if you still don't get it, that's your problem. Don't read books and then watch movies based on those books, 9 out of 10 times you will be let down.

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

Trust me, I understand...

My point is.. if the movie is NOTHING.. I repeat, NOTHING like the book.. then change the frigging title! They can say "Based on the novel - Foxfire" .. but they shouldn't name the movie FOXFIRE.. dont u get it? have you even freaking read the book?

-Tan

reply

[–] deaddest 19 years ago

No I have not yet read the book, but it makes no difference - YOU YOURSELF pointed out the simularities WHILE you were pointing out the differences...

Do us all a favor, just stop talking, you sound more and more ignorant every time you reply.

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

Oooo you havent read the book! So therefore your "opinion" doesn't matter!

-Tan

reply

[–] deaddest 19 years ago

First off MORON, I wasn't giving an opinion about the movie itself, i was trying to teach your ignorant mind what "based on" means, but you can't see past your blinders.

SECONDLY, you are the most rude individual, and just because you think you are right, doesn't mean you are.

Thirdly, I'm done with you, you obviously cannot learn anything. My preschoolers have a better attitude than you, and they eat paste. This does not mean you have convinced anyone of anything, it just means, I'm not going to bother with a conversation where you don't even listen.

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

Look who's talking about "attitude".

Good Day

-Tan

reply

[–] richangelo 19 years ago

Hey you two, be nice.
The book and movie are vastly different. I read the book years ago and just saw the movie last night. Big, big differences. The movie is very loosely based on the book; that being said, I thought the movie was okay and would have been much better if they had followed the book more closely.

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

:( thank you... i just think they ruined the story... thats all :(

-Tan

reply

[–] InspireMe 19 years ago

I read the book and I saw the movie. I liked both of them very much. I hate it when a movie is exactly the same as the book, it doesn't allow much creative freedom! It's cool how someone can borrow storylines from a novel and change it into something (almost) entirely new. I am so excited for the new willy wonka movie! same story, new adaptations

reply

[–] Toshimoko29 19 years ago

The book doesn't sound very interesting at all, think I'll stick with the movie, as I liked it quite a bit.
Perhaps JCO would have considered it an insult if they took characters and incidents in the book and put them in a movie, no matter how much they changed, and then didn't use the same title. I know I would.

We all fall down...

reply

[–] nammage 18 years ago

I used to eat paste. I recommend elmer's, it's safe for children to eat (actually true).

:)

'...the ultimate ending, is war itself.'

reply

[–] sodapop1008 19 years ago

The premise is the same. A group of girls band together, form a gang of sorts and rebel against men (and society in general) who've wronged them. Because the screenplay writer (or whoever, really) read the book and said "Hey.. I'm going to make a movie about this," is enough to call it "based on." If they hadn't said it was "based on" the novel and had it made and released under another title, renaming all of the characters, they could have been and most likely WOULD have been sued for stealing the premise. Yes, I know the idea isn't an original one, but the simple fact is, the idea for the movie came from this novel. I would strongly assume that Joyce Carol Oates or in the least her publishing company had something to do with the film, or else they wouldn't be allowed to use the name.

If she's happy with it, suck it up and deal with it.

reply

[–] nammage 18 years ago

Usually a person(s) or studio will buy the rights to the book so they can use the name with or without permission. Also, if the name was used before (and it was) they can use it without permission; there was a movie in 1955 also by the name of Foxfire: http://imdb.com/title/tt0048091/ .

reply

[–] kali42 19 years ago

okay. here goes nothin.
first of all, the girls in the book based their house (which is only alluded to in the movie) on a communist ideal. how many teenagers -- the demographic for this movie -- would have understood that? how many parents would've freaked out about their kids watching a movie where the characters live their lives on a communist/socialist model?
second of all, joyce carol oates has a writing credit for the movie. obviously, she accepted the changes made to her novel. perhaps she had to, but she didn't sue anyone that i ever heard about.
third, jco writes in a stream-of-conciousness style. that's extremely hard to translate to the screen. as a theatre major, it has been pointed out to me (repeatedly) that movies work best in a realist manner. otherwise, we'd be subjected to "the complete works of bertolt brecht" on video or some such nonsense. if you want a concrete example of that problem, watch "nijinsky". my roommate the dancer rented it, and it gave us both headaches.
fourth -- you work with what you've got, i guess. there aren't many girls that could've played "boom-boom"; big girls are usually cast in more squishy or comic roles. and angelina as a blonde is an abomination.
fifth: would anyone have understood "foxfire hooking"? that's a tough one. after all, attitudes toward women *have* changed in the last forty/fifty years. the hooking wouldn't have made sense to a lot of the audience.
i could go on, but this is a start. the main problem is that this (the movie) is not a period piece, and the book was. if they had made it one, it would have probably alienated the people that the movie was aimed at. the book has slow parts, and if they had copied it word for word, it would have been as long as k. branaugh's "hamlet", and as nightmarishly dragging as "house of mirth".
and yes, i've seen and read both versions, and i liked them both for different reasons.

reply

[–] reiki_only 19 years ago

I did like it without reading the book, before seeing the movie-- and if there is a popular novel that is mentioned, as "possible movie in the works", I wait and see; then I read the book after.

all the reasons listed here, are why.

so much of the impact of a novel is your interpretation, the effect the words and story have on YOU. a movie? is the novel's interpretation by someone else.
and it always will be, whether judged by the viewer as good or bad.

I understand that much of this movie was changed regarding major themed details. However, the changes between a book and a movie? are never the same.

Its also not the same, as the images and ideas, and feelings you had as a reader. Those were your own interpretations and feelings that resulted. (and although that doesn't relate to a time change, the changes in a character's love story, or all those, that are called "artistic license"-- very often Hollywood, just makes a movie, based on some "ideas" or thoughts of a book. (or a novella you were fond of)

often you have to take the two products as separate, and one mostly inspired the other.

because the people who hated the movie, are so passionate? I am inclined to buy the book now. And I would have been if you liked it also.

While I understand the disappointment, and even anger, this IS the way novel interpretations usually turned out--

ex. Who liked reading S.E. Hinton's books before seeing the movies?
who has read Joyce Carol Oates book "That Night" after seeing the movie?
Who read "under the tuscany sky" AFTER, viewing the movie.

major differences, all of a different kind and interpretation, from the novel and to what was put on screen. However it was done, and in their own way-- and I don't regret that I saw the movie/or read the book (despite the order) regarding any of them. :]

reply

[–] sodapop1008 19 years ago

Because it's just that.. BASED on the novel. As in, there are similarities between the two. They took the novel and adapted it, updated it, and turned it into a movie. Get over it, that's what Hollywood does.

I own a movie BASED on a true story. How much is it based? Only one scene in the movie resembles the true story.. however it's still based on it.

reply

[–] indisins 19 years ago

yeah, yeah, i know i am late, but i totally agree with you. good movie, good book. not the same thing, just the same story. it also got me into angie, and made me love hedy even more.

reply

[–] adnorton86 16 years ago

I completely 100% agree with you!! Angie is sexy as hell and an amazing actress as are the other girls in the movie, this was my "power" movie when i was younger. You know the movies that remind you that just because you're a girl doesn't mean you have to put up with all that *beep*

The same goes for me about FFX and X2 except not really. I loved Foxfire since i was like 13 or so, but only started playing the games when i was like 16 or 17, it wasn't till later that i found out that Hedy Burress portrayed Yuna (By far THE best video game heroine I've ever seen!!!)

good to hear other's opinions!!

<3 Amanda

reply

[–] lioninoil 15 years ago

shellbell200301 wrote:

THATS RIGHT.. ONE IS A NOVEL AND ONE IS A MOVIE

Thank you for trying to remind the hystrionic n00bs that there is a fundamental difference between a novel and a movie, most of whom still don't get it.

"You're innocent when you dream" -- Tom Waits, "You Dream"

reply

[–] tanya_cherry 19 years ago

Good movie? It barely made any sense!

-Tan

reply

[–] Lovaela 19 years ago

I'll tell you why they don't change the title:

the same reason there are several movies out there that have the same name as other movies and other books that are completely different.

I agree with the person who was trying to explain what 'based on' means. The movie got the general idea for the movie from the Foxfire book, it doesn't mean it has to be exactly the same.

Maybe the movie did "ruin" the novel in your opinion, but the movie will do no more harm to the novel and it's fans, than you will to the fans of the movie. In other words; this long ass thread isn't going to get people to not like the movie any less.

-Lovaela

reply

[–] Lovaela 19 years ago

Oh and I also agree with sodapop.

"If they hadn't said it was "based on" the novel and had it made and released under another title, renaming all of the characters, they could have been and most likely WOULD have been sued for stealing the premise"

Exactly. With all the copywrite laws and such, yup.

reply

[–] cindel-1 19 years ago

Good movie? It barely made any sense!

It made a ton of sense "Tan". Don't be an idiot. Just because the movie and the book are vastly different does not in any way detract from the quality of this movie.

I wanted to meet interesting and stimulating people of an ancient culture... and kill them.

reply

[–] nammage 18 years ago

You've already stated above that you have a 'biased opinion' (your words) so anything you say is a moot point, it means nothing.

I am a writer, the movie made sense. It didn't make sense to you because you were looking for the novel on the screen and thus it made no sense -- next time, don't look for the novel, just sit back and enjoy the movie and if the movie still isn't good, then present the reasons as to why and don't compare it to something that it may or may not have been based on.

Again, two different entities.

:)

'...the ultimate ending, is war itself.'

reply

[–] lioninoil 13 years ago

tanya_cherry wrote: "It barely made any sense!"

Watch it again after you sober up.
"You're innocent when you dream" -- Tom Waits, "You Dream"

reply

[–] caligirl2117 19 years ago

I actually liked both the book and the movie but I never thought the movie would be just like the book because it would be too hard to fit that book into a 2 hour movie. The book took spanned a couple of years, 3 I think, and there was many different situations involving thier issues with men and it just wouldn't have fit. I did like the book better but I understand why they made it so different.

reply

[–] LittleEarthquakes 19 years ago

I loved both the book and the movie...now I saw the movies several times before I read the book, but that didn't make me dislike the book because it wasn't just like the movie or dislike the movie because it wasn't just like the book.

Sure, there were a lot of things different between the two, but they are both very good.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nammage 18 years ago

When is a movie the actuality of what it may or may not be based on? I have never seen a movie that was a direct representation of a book. I have never seen a movie that is based on a 'true story' actually use all the 'truthful' anecdotes that were actually factual in real life be represented in the movie that was made.

If the novelist wrote the screenplay than perhaps it'd be more 'true to life' but even then it would not be a direct copy of the novel. The novel is one entity the movie is another. If you just watch movies that are based on novels or what not and expect a direct copy to be presented on the screen then you're just getting your hopes up.

I never expect that. I came away from reading October Sky as being one entity of itself, being written true-to-life by the author and then watching the movie that was totally different and had mainly 'stretch-of-truths' in it.

But the author approved.

Look at the book at being about one thing, and look at the movie being about the other. They were both written by two different people, were they not?

I have never read the book, but I like the movie. And if I ever do read the book it doesn't mean I'll like the movie less just because the book may hold things in it that are different and/or better.

If it were true of all things than movies would never be made.

Oh, and 'ripoff' would entail that it would be from the book and true to form.

:)

'...the ultimate ending, is war itself.'

reply

[–] ComtessaLaRue 18 years ago

Saw the movie.....Two monthes later, read the book...loved both.
To those out there who are "outraged" at the "differences", look at it this way:
The Buttinger-beating in the movie was based on the teacher/his position AND Maddy's uncle(that's where they got the attack!)
The stealing of Dana's car is based on the car they steal in the book, again, after a fight with a group of arrogant boys.
She's in a "Red Bank" facility both-times.
MV's Violet is based on both Lana and Violet.
Goldie's father in the MV takes the place of WKJ, as why pay another actor when you already have motivation between his abuse of Goldie and Legs's hatred of him(/all fathers in general).
The ending was a s such because if you remember back to the book, it's told from what Maddy's HEARD, not experienced, as she was expelled from Foxfire. In the movie, we again have Maddy narrating, but the ending needed that dramatic-touch. Had it been told in flashback/what Rita told her ten(?) years late, it wouldn't have been that great. You have that changing-moment when Maddy challenges her fear of height after losing Legs(forever).

Also, I see Legs as having short, brown(and "dirty", as the visit to Goldie's) hair, rather than blonde, because it gives that strong, poor, homeless, yet headstrong feel. Had they had Angelina play it with blonde hair(as in Girl, Interrupted[looked ok, cute] or **shudders** as in How to Steal a Car in 60 Seconds[is that right?]ech!) it wouldn't have worked. She wouldn't have seemed as tough.
And, they edit things out because they need more drama, more rising-action, a better climax.

"If you ever come near me again, I'll cut your little nuts off with my TOEnail-clippers!"

reply

[–] nammage 18 years ago

How about next time you hit the reply button by the person who started the thread and not the person who commented about the thread.

There's an idea, then I can cease getting asinine e-mails.

:-)

'...the ultimate ending, is war itself.'

reply

[–] reyjamiei 18 years ago

Such a horrible movie!! It has absolutely nothing to do with the novel! They should just change the damn title of the movie... Legs' was supposed to have blonde hair.. Where the hell is Lana?? Goldie, quiet? HAH!!! Portland? My ass! Try - NEW YORK!! Mr. Buttinger, beaten up? He was supposed to have his car painted with rude remmarks!! Such a stupid movie.. such a rip off of the novel!! I'm ashamed for the movie itself! UGH!

If the movie is nothing like the novel, how is it a rip off of the novel? A rip off is when you use a source without giving credit to the source, this movie gives credit to Joyce Carol Oates for the novel.

reply