Tuesday, December 16, 2008

friends or friends-ters?

Are we actually friends or just friends-ters?

Every couple of months, I get around to checking my friendster account-- to get an update on some people, to look at pictures that friends have been bugging me to check out, and to check if there are some accounts which have no longer have a place in my life (e.g. accounts like gorgeous people, drunken fairies, and so on) and therefore should be deleted.

With friends, no matter how callous I may look or actually be --- in truth, I'm a sucker. Forget me for a couple of years, ignore me (I'll do the same), don't greet me for major holidays (e.g. my birthday)... It all goes down the drain once you contact me.

By the way, to be clear, friends are people who:
1. I've actually had a conversation with -- not small talk
2. Were halfway decent to me during my weird years (i.e. all my life)

When does friendship actually stop? A cheesy message says Friendship is like “sms” bcoz it comes & stays inside Ur Inbox until U delete it. But is it really as easy as that? It's there but maybe instead of growing... you're growing apart. I admit, there are so many levels in being friends. In my world, I have:
1. practically family --- no matter what, you love them. no questions asked. time apart (almost) doesn't matter.
2. close friends --- they mean a lot and have shared a big chunk of my life (and I don't mean in years)
3. buddies --- pals who you can share SOME thoughts with
4. casual friends --

***note to Phy: This isn't the draft I was telling you about. I'm still unsatisfied with that one. This one kinda came out of I don't know what... :P

P.S. just posting it now... can't remember why I started this topic. lol

Twilight should have stayed in the dark

I wonder how movies would be if I wasn't so fond of reading books.... would I enjoy screen adaptations more. P.S. I Love You was different from the book, so was The Notebook. The Lord of the Rings was way too long for everything to be translated onscreen.But they were good films. Twilight, on the other hand, pretty much had the scenes from the book --- mapped out quite differently, but, still there --- BUT it sucked. I'll be kind (and believe me I'm often the opposite) and say that it just kinda sucked. As opposed to majorly sucked. But hello.I never thought I'd say this, but a little more cinematic license wouldn't have hurt. Haha, never thought I'd say that. There was a time when I hated my sister for saying that movies are entitled to cinematic license. But now, I realize that for a screen adaptation to actually work they should stick to the heart of the story and play around with the scenes and stuff. Yes, it's fun to see and hear scenes that you've only imagined while reading the book but movies are different from books. they are visual and in my opinion, people should read books when they want to imagine and they should watch movies when they want to see. not just watch a movie so they can see what they imagine. watching Twilight, i felt like i kept on filling in the blanks instead enjoying myself. it reminded me of watching the first two installments of Harry Potter. by the 3rd one (thank god for Christopher Columbus), I could actually sit back and enjoy the film. considering that book three was my favorite, the movie had a lot to live up to. But instead of criticizing (ok, i did criticize it negatively, BUT just a little)i appreciated it as a movie and figured that as long as they stuck to what the book was supposed to be about, it was good. It didn't need a play by play reenactment of the book scenes... that would've been crazy. That's what makes or breaks screen adaptations stick too much to the story and you get glimpses of what the story's supposed to be about. but if you take some liberties, and I mean some, you end up staying true to the story OR at least, end up with a good film. Some adaptations don't have 7 chances you know...

oh well, I'll never know the answer... 24 years is too long for someone to break a habit. reading is more than a hobby for me