Movie Thread

I haven't seen the third, will probably see it tomorrow or Saturday though, I don't treat the movies as Tolkien canon. They may follow the same basic stories with the same basic characters but Jackson took massive liberties with the characters and parts of the story changing very important parts. And it's not just the Hobbit where Azog you know, was dead in the books. It happened in LOTR too. People are more vocal about the Hobbit though because more had to be added cause there isn't 6 hours of movie in that little book. I also don't understand why Peter Jackson doesn't like Gandalf which is why he looks way weaker in the movies than the books. Don't get me wrong, I love the movies for what they are, but I don't treat them as tolkien canon. In one set they cut out a massive number of characters to make the story telling go easier, in the other they just flat out made **** up (Azog and basically everything in Lake Town, the silly song about dishes, Evangeline Lilly's character, etc.) Original trilogy should have been 5 or 6 films and the Hobbit should have been 2.
 
zitothebrave said:
I haven't seen the third, will probably see it tomorrow or Saturday though, I don't treat the movies as Tolkien canon. They may follow the same basic stories with the same basic characters but Jackson took massive liberties with the characters and parts of the story changing very important parts. And it's not just the Hobbit where Azog you know, was dead in the books. It happened in LOTR too. People are more vocal about the Hobbit though because more had to be added cause there isn't 6 hours of movie in that little book. I also don't understand why Peter Jackson doesn't like Gandalf which is why he looks way weaker in the movies than the books. Don't get me wrong, I love the movies for what they are, but I don't treat them as tolkien canon. In one set they cut out a massive number of characters to make the story telling go easier, in the other they just flat out made **** up (Azog and basically everything in Lake Town, the silly song about dishes, Evangeline Lilly's character, etc.) Original trilogy should have been 5 or 6 films and the Hobbit should have been 2.
Click to expand...

Good points. I read an essay recently that decried the absence of Tom Bombadil from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
 
I'm fine with leaving out Tom Bombadil, he's a confusing character. Tolkien on Bombadil said some things in mythology should stay a mystery. He's confusing, but super memorable. I was way more pissed off about Elves at Helms Deep and the totally needless death of Haldir, and so many more things. Though I can't forgive the changing of Faramir, my favorite book character, sucked in the movies.
 
BedellBrave said:
Saw the third movie this week. Kinda meh on it.
Click to expand...

Because it was largely forced.

I also really don't get the idea of why they had to have the special lance gun thing. Bard shot him with a normal bow and his special black arrow that was probably magic. With all the added time I don't know why they didn't go that route and instead just made some ****ing **** up.
 
BedellBrave said:
I think your idea of more LOTR movies and 2 Hobbit ones (or even 1), would have been better.
Click to expand...

I know Jackson could get the funding to do more LOTR movies, actors would probably do it. Reshoot it. I like the idea of 2 Hobbit movies, Hobbit was a simple book, but it's universe was vastly expanded after it's release. So I'm fine with that concept, I'd have preferred better execution. It baffles me they excluded things to add bull**** that was unnecessary, no reason for the changes in Laketown if you're trying to stay sort of true to the books.
 
Jackson was using Tolkien's notes to expand the Hobbit into 3 movies.

I don't like the idea of more LOTR movies. 3 felt just about right. 3 extra long movies like it was over 4-5 regular length movies. Hobbit was made 3 movies just to milk it and make it similar to LOTR (3 year experience).
 
zitothebrave said:
Because it was largely forced.

I also really don't get the idea of why they had to have the special lance gun thing. Bard shot him with a normal bow and his special black arrow that was probably magic. With all the added time I don't know why they didn't go that route and instead just made some ****ing **** up.
Click to expand...

That was my impression. Jackson made story where story wasn't really there. It seemed like lots of action for the sake of action to no real end. Could have cut half an hour out of the thing without it missing a beat.
 
Heywood said:
Jackson was using Tolkien's notes to expand the Hobbit into 3 movies.

I don't like the idea of more LOTR movies. 3 felt just about right. 3 extra long movies like it was over 4-5 regular length movies. Hobbit was made 3 movies just to milk it and make it similar to LOTR (3 year experience).
Click to expand...

And he made **** up. Radagast was just totally added in with many things. Council of Elrond was implied and discussed, but just that. All the Radagast stuff was made up.
 
BedellBrave said:
Saw the third movie this week. Kinda meh on it.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen it yet, but the first two gave me the "meh" kinda feeling. Sad, the Hobbit had so much promise, but the LOTR flicks had so much more magic.
 
BedellBrave said:
Think that was inevitable with putting the Hobbit out after LOTR.
Click to expand...

I think the issue falls into trying to make the Hobbit LOTR style. As far as we know the will of the ring (what weighed Frodo down didn't really kick in until Sauron was heavily searching for it) wasn't active when Bilbo had it aside from the eventual golluminazation of him but that was never really present. Jackson instead decided to focus on the Ring which yes in the grand scheme played a part, but it was forgotten between the end of the second age and the war of the ring.

I don't want to go into the story too much until more people have seen it. But the idea of the Hobbit as a LOTR prequel could have been done better without so much focus on the ring. Focusing instead on the ever changing world would have been better. And (semi-spoilers) don't know how they could have made Thranduil look like an even bigger dick than he did in the books. In the books he was a dick, but an elvish dick. Not like in the films. I won't go into the endings cause I don't want to spoil it but the endings are what disappointed me the most about the films.
 
I'm fairly damn enamored of golden-age films, I really like 1940–50s melodrama (shout out to Douglas Sirk), and I feel generally pretty solid about Vicente Minnelli's work—but ****: 'Meet Me in St Louis' is a legitimately weird ****ing film.

I'm pretty much just in to hear how depressing Judy Garland's incipient rendition of Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas is in its full, original context.
 
jpx7 said:
I'm fairly damn enamored of golden-age films, I really like 1940–50s melodrama (shout out to Douglas Sirk), and I feel generally pretty solid about Vicente Minnelli's work—but ****: 'Meet Me in St Louis' is a legitimately weird ****ing film.

I'm pretty much just in to hear how depressing Judy Garland's incipient rendition of Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas is in its full, original context.
Click to expand...

Agree on both counts. And not fond of that shade of red hair on Judy Garland.
 
Haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies. Last time I've been in a theater was more than 10 years ago. I can't see myself paying $10 for a movie, $7 for popcorn and $5 for soda. Wait till it is at Family Video, pay a $1, get some booze, better micro popcorn, happy as hell.

I will watch movies on Netflix, but usually movies that were never shown in theater and actually some of them are quite good.
 
Latest two I've seen have been The Grand Budapest Hotel and Foxcatcher. Grand Budapest Hotel was very quirky. Steve Carrell and Mark Ruffalo deserve the praise they're getting for Foxcatcher, but I think Channing Tatum may not be getting enough credit for his performance.
 
bravesnumberone said:
Latest two I've seen have been The Grand Budapest Hotel and Foxcatcher. Grand Budapest Hotel was very quirky. Steve Carrell and Mark Ruffalo deserve the praise they're getting for Foxcatcher, but I think Channing Tatum may not be getting enough credit for his performance.
Click to expand...

Signature Wes Anderson movie. If you're a fan of Wes Anderson you love it. His movies are all similar.

Centered camera, funny looking yet beautiful sets. His characters seldom show major emotion and appear emotionless most of the time. Lot's of standing upright.
 
Just saw the first installment of the third Hunger Games. Thought it was pretty good. From what I hear the book series is better than the movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top