|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Dec 9, 2003 9:34:09 GMT -5
Reading the books out loud is a fun little challenge. My mother did when I was about seven, and that must've taken some patience. The Hobbit and all three LOTR ones. Along with Watership Down and those Narnia books....lotsa big thick novels without pictures. That's the way to go.
SPOILER?
On the subject of Signs, I'm going to agree that the aliens weren't as important as the family togetherness that bested them and the faith that was required to do so. Having those aliens was an excuse for the preacher to be thankful for the respective "weaknesses" of his family members, thus redeeming his own faith and humanity.
I've gotta say that I love this director's works. He pretty much writes really long and comedic episodes of The Twilight Zone that have somewhat happy endings. I can't wait to hear what his next work is.
END SPOILER
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 9, 2003 12:59:52 GMT -5
I haven't seen Signs, but that might be a tad harsh. Maybe they've made an informed decision based on their observation and have a different opinion. Or maybe you're right on the money. I feel that way about most people who like Forrest Gump. (Although "short-sighted" isn't harsh enough). Wow. That's a lot of short-sighted people considering that's one of the most popular movies of all time. I've only seen bits and peices of it, so I can't judge. However, I do find Robert Zemeckis to be a very talented director (even though his last two movies were crap).
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Dec 9, 2003 13:03:07 GMT -5
Forrest Gump is one of the movies that makes me feel so very, very neutral. I honestly couldn't decide if I liked it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 10, 2003 21:27:15 GMT -5
Torgo, I know you're too intelligent to conclude that because something is popular that means it's good.
I loved the Back to the Future movies, so my gripe isn't with Zemekis. I also like Tom Hanks, so I've got nothing against him. I just loathed that film.
[WARNING: Rant Ahead] Life is not like a box of chocolates. A little common sense and wisdom will tell you exactly what you're gonna get. But if you have neither, like Gumpy, then you can lead a full and prosperous life anyway.
The movie is nothing more than existentialism for baby boomers. Nothing has any lasting consequence, just keep being a little slow in the midst of social change and personal tragedy, and everything will be just fine. Ignorance is the key to success.
There's no meaning in life, unless you happen to have a child with a woman you love who mistreats you and doesn't love you, and who doesn't bother to tell you about your child until she's dying. Yep. A real heart-warmer.
Anyone who sees this movie as a "feel-good story" is short-sighted indeed.
But maybe I'm overanalyzing.
[End Rant]
|
|
|
Post by Unsavory on Dec 10, 2003 21:32:19 GMT -5
Err...this conversation seems to have drifted, but I'm not a big fan of the Lord of the Rings films. I first one didn't even attempt to have an ending. The Empire Strikes Back was more conclusive than that. Besides that, the first movie was entertaining all the way through, but the second was little more than boring filler.
Never read the books, so I can't compare.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 10, 2003 21:57:54 GMT -5
Sorry for drifting.
Just wanted to add (on topic) that there's only one more week until the final installment of the greatest trilogy of all time is released. I've got my ticket!
|
|
TomServo69
Moderator Emeritus
Gone but not Forgotten
Nothing ever changes........
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by TomServo69 on Dec 10, 2003 22:18:43 GMT -5
Let me see, I like the LOTR movies and books but, most people have a problem with Tolkien's writing and usually these gripes are well solicited. Each book is written in a different style. In one he tries to describe places and not characters while it's vice-versa in another. You get what you need as far as descriptions but, sometimes it's too much. You also at times don't get enough story on what's going on and sometimes you get wayyyyy too much on something asinine. The first movie was good to me considering I'm one of those people who, I watch a movie based on a book to either a)bitch about how it doesn't follow the book or if it does b)see a visual representation of what I read and the first movie does that well. The second movie on the other hand cuts off the end of the book to prevent a down ending. Now if you read my top ten movies then you know I hate down endings (i.e. Empire Strikes Back) but when you're making a movie of a book......FOLLOW THE DAMN BOOK!!! Anyways, Tolkien's writings and the films are really hit-miss and I know a lot of people consider these to just be overblown, hollywood blockbusters but, the story actually takes a brain to understand (believe me, I've had to explain it to people) and the effects are well placed. Well, that's my rant for the moment.
Servo
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 10, 2003 23:10:06 GMT -5
I wonder if people's opinions about the first two will change when they see the third one?
I think the reason I'm so excited for Return of the King is because I know all of the character and plot payoffs that are coming.
I've heard a lot of complaints that the first two didn't have proper endings, or that the characters and places were confusing. I wonder if the incredible way it all ties up in the end will resolve those complaints for those people.
|
|
Torgo
Moderator Emeritus
-segment with Crow?
Posts: 15,420
|
Post by Torgo on Dec 11, 2003 1:02:42 GMT -5
Torgo, I know you're too intelligent to conclude that because something is popular that means it's good. Now I never said that. Like I said above, I've never seen the whole thing. Plus I've never been one to take to popular movies (like my above stated hatered for Signs). I thought Armageddon was one of the worst movies ever made. But for some reason beyond me entirely, it was a Box Office smash. But I don't judge people by what movies they like. Hell I found several of the movies on IMDBs bottom 100 watchable, but I wouldn't like people to judge me on that.
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Dec 11, 2003 2:08:17 GMT -5
I certainly won't judge Mike for sitting through Neptune Men.
|
|
|
Post by lemminkimmen on Dec 13, 2003 12:42:45 GMT -5
Just to put my two cents in, I find the first two films of theLOTR trilogy to be quite beautiful, stirring, inspirational and downright entertaining. Though not perfect, the films are so darn well-executed on all levels it is hard to criticize them, at least for me. Consider this: think what a mess Hollywood could/would have made of these films, and you start to realize what an accomplishment this Trilogy is.
Can't wait for the next one, will probably see it the first week of release(not masochistic enough to go on opening night).
On the other hand, why can't I get into the Star Wars thing? Was it really Jar-Jar that killed that franchise for me-or was it George Lucas?
hmmmmmmmmm..............
|
|
|
Post by Tranq on Dec 13, 2003 16:45:57 GMT -5
The books are fantastic. Peter Jackson's version stinks! He rewrote the entire thing. Why ruin a perfect story? Peter Jackson needs to be displayed in a public arena and lashed severely for what he did.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Dec 13, 2003 19:11:02 GMT -5
I started reading Tolkien's Lord of the Rings just as the first film was released two years ago, which I then saw when I had finished reading the first part, Fellowship of the Ring. And I was completely disappointed by the film! It was much darker and action-oriented than Tolkien's book, and some of the over-the-top stuff in the film (simply wearing the ring being like some sort of acid trip, and Galadriel's psychedelic freak-out scene) just bothered me.
I finished Tolkien's book and then saw the Extended Edition of FOTR. Although the over-the-top stuff still bothers me, I like it a lot now because the extra scenes really brought more Tolkien into the film as well as helped the pacing tremendously (I thought it was too fast in the theatrical cut).
When I saw The Two Tower in the theater, once again, I was disappointed by it because it seemed too choppy. But seeing the Extended Edition, the extra scenes really filled it out and explained the changes made to the original story for dramatic reasons. And I now think it is truly a great film, better than the first.
I've also taken the time to thumb through the books again, and realize just how un-cinematic they would be in a 100% faithful adaptation, because it would be very talky with little actually happening for long stretches. Now I have a better appreciation for the changes Peter Jackson & Co. made, most of which were just to make the story more cinematic without losing the heart of the original novels. So I forgive the times they went over-the-top and really look forward to seeing Return of the King (...and especially the EE on DVD, whenever it comes out).
My personal rating of the films so far: FOTR: Theatrical Version: B+ FOTR: Extended Edition: A- TTT: Theatrical Version: B+ TTT: Extended Edition: A
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Dec 15, 2003 0:33:52 GMT -5
Tranq- I'm curious what it is about Jackson's version you deplore so deeply.
As a huge fan of the books, I also have problems with some of the changes (Faramir, for example). However, compared to everything Jackson did right, it's a small price to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Tranq on Dec 15, 2003 17:47:28 GMT -5
Tranq- I'm curious what it is about Jackson's version you deplore so deeply. As a huge fan of the books, I also have problems with some of the changes (Faramir, for example). However, compared to everything Jackson did right, it's a small price to pay. Well, there are more than just Faramir that was wrong. Starting with the introduction of the shire and Bilbo's party. He never mentioned that it was also Frodo's birthday. Merry and Pippen didn't light a huge firework, The way Frodo obtained the ring, What's with Gandalf freaking like he's on Crystal Meth screaming "Is it secret? Is it safe?". Why is Anduril lying on display in Rivendale? Why was Arwen the one to save Frodo from the Wraiths and NOT GLorfindle. Why did Peter make Gimli a "cutsie wootsie" comedy relief? Why does Gollum sound way too much like Jar Jar Binks? Why was Sam not at the Pool of Galadriel with Frodo. Sam never let Frodo out of his sight. Where was Tom Bombadil? ?? and how did Aragorn "find" the swords on top of Weathertop? ? sheeeeeesh!! now I'm getting pissed again and I haven't even hit on what he screwed up in Two Towers. Anyhooooo, Peter Jackson isn't that talented of a director. He just had the right ammount of money to make a good "gimmick" flick.
|
|