LOVED THE MOVIE/DISLIKED THE TITLE. - Blood and Chocolate (2007) Discussion

[–] cavywolf 17 years ago

LOL

I am a little tired reading people who keep saying the title sucked (You to, but your rename is funny). If it was not based off a book, they could of changed it, but it wasn't. But yeah, for a movie, the title doesn't work very well...

reply

[–] Carycomic 17 years ago

Thanks for the compliment. But, I'm afraid Hollywood can--and often does--change the title of movies adapted from books, if they think it will increase box-office success.

Case in point: MANHUNTER (1986). Starring Cliff Petersen (pre-CSI) as Agent Will Graham; Dennis Farina (pre-L&O) as his boss; and a clean-shaven Brian Cox (pre-BOURNE IDENTITY) as Dr. Hannibal Lecter! This was the original, Michael Mann-produced version of Thomas Harris' RED DRAGON. And, thus, it is regarded by many--myself included--as having SILENCE OF THE LAMBS as a sequel.

reply

[–] mikebourkefan 12 years ago

ill have to read the book

reply

[–] maiv_8 17 years ago

you're probably saying that because i'm pretty sure you didn't read the book at all. the title fits perfectly with the book, trust me. in the movie, it had NOTHING to do with anything. it was so cliche to have her working in a chocolate shop in order to tie in the title. lame move. they shoulda named it anything, anything else

reply

[–] Carycomic 17 years ago

No, what I said is pretty much the truth. If Hollywood thinks a book-title won't translate well in adaptation to a movie screen, they change it to something that will. And, disclaim as much in the opening credits.

Another case in point: THE OUTLAW JOSIE WALES (w/Clint Eastwood; 1976).

"Based on the novel, 'Gone To Texas,' by Forrest Carter."

Which I _did_ read, btw.

reply

[–] Zelasha 15 years ago

Yeah, this is right, a film that was made in England was killed King George III but the company had to change it because Americans wouldn't go and see it because they thought they'd have missed the first two! I'm not making a dig at Americans, that is the actual reason.

reply

[–] Carycomic 15 years ago

I agree with you, Zel. Even David Lean, the Oscar-winning director of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, once told the American Film Institute that Roman-numbered sequels was a trend that alarmed him.

reply

[–] PirateMetalFan 15 years ago

i find the title appropate for the book for the metaphorical point in it.

blood=vivian's werewolf lifestyle
chocolate=her human feelings

"the longer you read this,you'll relize that this is my signature and there is no point to it"

reply

[–] darkneah 15 years ago

I would have like the movie if it werent supposed to be Blood and Chocolate... Just about the only thing that was anything like the book was the character names, everything else was completely twisted... Which is okay to do in movies, but the took bllod and chocolate and hacked it up and pieced it together with other things... It was... Odddd.... But disreguarding what its SUPPOSED to be base off of, it was a pretty okay movie...

My greatest sin has always been that I have a wonderful time being myself -Lestat

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]