To wish Helen Fielding would leave Bridget Jones alone

[Coatonarack]

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.....

[NotTreadingGrapes]

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

[youmaycallmeSSP]

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

[youmaycallmeSSP]

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]

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]

Floaty- beautifully put.

[RussiansOnTheSpree]

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. . 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]

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]

Chics and I can still think it's funny

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Er, wasn't Jane Austen the primary source?

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

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

[PuffPants]

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?

[Thumbwitch]

9st IS fat for RZ.

[FloatyBeatie]

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 .

[Thumbwitch]

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]

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]

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

[Coatonarack]

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

[ChocsAwayInMyGob]

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]

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]

x posts with chocsaway

[RussiansOnTheSpree]

She's not supposed to be any bigger than shazzer. In the films RZ was decidedly bigger than Sally Phillips. Bridge wasn't supposed to be a size 12, that was the point - she was thin but obsessed with the idea that she wasn't. Everyone else could see that she was thin. She was the only one who couldn't. This point was completely lost in the films.