To wish Helen Fielding would leave Bridget Jones alone

(61 Posts)
Coatonarack Sun 17-Mar-13 10:07:34

I love Bridget. The books are hilarious and the first film was a gem. But the second film was a pastiche and the IMDB accounts of the third film sounded dire. I started off reading her Daily Tel column again, but stopped when she described Bridget cheating on Mark with Daniel in a sordid encounter behind the recycling bins. And now Helen is writing the third book.

Bridget Jones should be left alone. The last film came out nearly 10 years ago. It's over. Don't ruin it. There's nowhere you can take this.

I know, I know, she's not real. But still.....

ChocsAwayInMyGob Mon 18-Mar-13 08:39:24

NotTreadring- now for that we should be grateful. BJ was at least a romcom that did not contain Jennifer Aniston. They are like unicorn shit these days. Very rare.

NotTreadingGrapes Mon 18-Mar-13 08:42:08

grin

I only have to hear her name and I hurl things at walls.

SuffolkNWhat Mon 18-Mar-13 08:58:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

youmaycallmeSSP Mon 18-Mar-13 09:07:06

I haven't read either book but I loved both the films grin If the third one involved her cheating on Mark Darcy I would consider it ruined though.

youmaycallmeSSP Mon 18-Mar-13 09:08:07

I would love to see her with 3 children posher than she is and her trying to keep up with the Eton yummy mummies. That would be very funny.

FloatyBeatie Mon 18-Mar-13 09:10:26

I liked both books and hated both films.

If she's updated to a scatty, socially-acceptable-wino mummy then I'm guessing it will be hard for the book/film/whatever to avoid playing to a surge of mummy cliches that we are all pretty much sick of now -- some of them generated partly by MN whose earlier tone was itself I think shaped by Helen Fielding's books.

The mummy-schtick has become such a big thing for journalists and marketers these days. They are all still desperate to whelp a few more profitable pups from its tired womb, but it is surely getting TOO OLD.

ChocsAwayInMyGob Mon 18-Mar-13 09:15:27

Floaty- beautifully put.

RussiansOnTheSpree Mon 18-Mar-13 09:17:32

It's always a bit funny when people say 'oh I love the books but the films ruined them' or similar. The books were not the original material and the books trashed the columns, a bit. grin. But - having been there from the very first column- I love them all. Columns, books, films..,,, the only thing I refuse to acknowledge is the final columns after she went back to the Indy and Bridge and Mark split. Not having that.

ChocsAwayInMyGob Mon 18-Mar-13 09:22:06

Russians- I can still say I prefer the books to the films without having read the columns.

I didn't read the columns, but it's OK to still prefer the books.

RussiansOnTheSpree Mon 18-Mar-13 09:23:06

Chics and I can still think it's funny grin

ChocsAwayInMyGob Mon 18-Mar-13 09:25:39

Maybe we can agree that the columns were the primary source, the books were the secondary source, and the films were a pile of pants?

RussiansOnTheSpree Mon 18-Mar-13 09:31:10

No, not really. Not least because the films are not a pile of pants. But also because the books are not a source (although I adore the books too) they are based on (but less funny than) the columns. grin

The only way in which the books trump the columns is in how they ended. The last column (befre the reboot) was just dire.

Mintyy Mon 18-Mar-13 09:35:08

Apropos of nothing in particular, that film Maybe Baby is the worst film I have ever seen in my v long life, and I always proffer it up on those "What films do you hate?" mn threads that come up from time to time.

MsJupiterJones Mon 18-Mar-13 09:37:13

Er, wasn't Jane Austen the primary source?

ChocsAwayInMyGob Mon 18-Mar-13 09:38:41

Jupiter, yes but in the same way that Clueless was loosely based on Emma.

PuffPants Mon 18-Mar-13 09:45:55

The thing that bugged me about the film was the weight issue. Wasn't the whole point that BJ was actually normal-sized, occasionally skinny, but that she was neurotic about her weight? She weighed about 9 st. So why did Renee Zellwhatsit have to play her as fat? confused

Thumbwitch Mon 18-Mar-13 10:02:03

9st IS fat for RZ.

FloatyBeatie Mon 18-Mar-13 10:02:49

Yes, that annoyed me too puffpants. It was like everybody had to agree with bridget's obsession that nine stone 6 or whatever is overweight. Which is the whole problem with weight and women: everyone does accept the idea that however much women weigh, they need to weigh less. Unless they are actual anorexics, in which case they are letting the side down by making the whole stupid preoccupation look bad.

I should have added "internet-hugging" to my list of flogged-to-death mummy cliches that the updated Bridget might display. I fear she will be a Mumsnet user, which will be a bit <yawn>.

Thumbwitch Mon 18-Mar-13 10:06:13

she was a US size 5 and had to go up 5 dress sizes, or something crazy like that to play BJ. Still not really fat, just a bit plump.

RussiansOnTheSpree Mon 18-Mar-13 10:21:18

RZ most definitely played Bridge as both fat and frumpy. Neither of which were supposed to be the case.

MsJupiter - Jane Austin was retro-fitted as the primary source. But initially HF had no master plan.

Thumbwitch Mon 18-Mar-13 10:32:09

size 4 - no one is ever a size 5 [sausage fingers]

Coatonarack Mon 18-Mar-13 11:19:56

Cross thread. Have you seen how old Hugh Grant is looking? Maybe we'll see Bridget Jones does Grandma.

ChocsAwayInMyGob Mon 18-Mar-13 11:23:27

I think RZ is usually a size 6 and when she played Bridget she went up to a huge fat wobbly non Hollywood size 12.

God, I'd love to be only a size 12!

Mintyy Mon 18-Mar-13 11:35:29

She didn't play her "fat". She just looks abnormally large in the films because we are so used to seeing UK size 6/8 actors on screen. Anything larger looks big. I'd guess she was a UK size 12 playing BJ.

Mintyy Mon 18-Mar-13 11:35:54

x posts with chocsaway

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now